world bank document€¦ · avani vaish, gef secretariat country/regional local consultants case...

22342

Evaluation Report #2-00

_~~~~~~~Climt

October 2000

GEF FILE COPY

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

REVIEW OF CLIMATE CHANGEENABLING ACTIVITY PROJECTS

OCTOBER 2000

CORE TEAM

SamirAmous, Team Leader/International ConsultantJarle Harstad, GEF Corporate Monitoring and Evaluation TeamMartin Krause, UNDP-GEF Monitoring and Evaluation UnitBo Lim, National Communications Support ProgramRamesh Ramankutty, GEF Corporate Monitoring and Evaluation TeamAdemola Salau, UNDP-GEF Climate Change Team/

Regional Coordinator for AfricaMahesh Sharma, World BankRavi Sharma, UNEPMiguel Perez Torralba, UNDP-GEF Monitoring and Evaluation UnitAvani Vaish, GEF Secretariat

COUNTRY/REGIONAL LOCAL CONSULTANTSCASE STUDIES

Aida Iskoyan, ArmeniaMohamed El-Sobki, Egypt Imran Behbudov, AzerbaijanJaime Bustillo Pon, Honduras Emilio La Rovere, BrazilPriyadarshi Shukla, India Mauricio Meza Caestro, BoliviaSivalingam Gunanathlingam, Malaysia J.H. Chendjou, CameroonCletus Springer, Caribbean region Riad Chedid, LebanonJohn Hay, Pacific Islands region Lucy Khalema Redeby, Lesotho

Arona Coulibaly, MaliMarisol Portal, PhilippinesKhorrombi Matibe, South AfricaNguyen Duc Minh, VietnamDavid Mbewe, Zambia

The views expressed in this study are those of the core team members and do notnecessarily represent the views of all the team members, nor the GEF

ii

PREFACE

This report presents the findings of a review of meetings were held with the GEF Secretariat,GEF-funded enabling activity projects for climate UNDP, UNEP, World Bank, Secretariat forchange undertaken in response to a decision by the UNFCCC and other organizations, includ-the GEF Council at its meeting on October 14- ing NGOs. The team gathered data and had16, 1998, where it recommended that the GEF discussions in 12 countries: Armenia,carry out a comprehensive review of enabling Azerbaijan, Bolivia, Brazil, Cameroon, Leba-activities to "determine how successful the non, Lesotho, Mali, Philippines, South Africa,projects have been, analyze the reasons for those Vietnam, and Zambia. Country case studiesthat have failed, and consider policy and pro- were prepared on Egypt, Honduras, India, andgrammatic responses to the problem." Malaysia. In addition, regional case studies

were prepared on the islands in the CaribbeanThe main audience for this review, in addition to and the Pacific respectively. Statistical datathe GEF Council, consists of the cooperating was also collected on enabling activity projectscountries, the Secretariat for the United Nations in all the 132 participating countries.Framework Convention on Climate Change,implementing and executing agencies, non-gov- During May-September 2000, the team leaderemmental organizations and private enterprises prepared draft reports based on inputs fromengaged in climate change matters. the team, the GEF Secretariat, and the three

Implementing Agencies. Advanced drafts ofThe terms of reference for the review was pre- the report were sent to the UNFCCC Secre-pared by the GEF Senior Monitoring and Evalu- tariat, and the GEF operational and politicalation Coordinator in consultation with UNDP, focal points in the above-mentioned countries.UNEP, the World Bank, and the UNFCCC Sec- The final report was presented to the GEFretariat. The Terms of Reference constitutes Council for discussion at the November 2000Annex 1. Council Meeting.

The Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Coordi- This review is a result of an extensive col-nator assembled the core team, consisting of laborative effort between the review team-SamirAmous (independent consultant and team members. The views expressed in the finalleader) and staff from the various relevant enti- report are those of the core team members.ties. The core team was assisted by local con- These views do not, however, necessarily rep-sultants in carrying out country visits, and local/ resent the views of all team members, nor theregional consultants in the preparation of coun- GEF. I am truly grateful to all those who par-try and regional case studies. The team is listed ticipated and contributed to the study, espe-in Annex 2. cially in the 16 countries and two regions men-

tioned above.From February to May 2000, the team memberscollected data from a variety of sources, and

Jarle HarstadSenior Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This review was made possible by the George Manful at the Secretariat for the Unitedexcellent cooperation extended by the Nations Framework Convention on Climategovernments and other project participants in Change. Jack Fitzgerald of the United Statesthe countries that were visited to collect Country Studies program was helpful ininformation and countries whose experiences discussing the experiences under that prograrn.were documented under the country or Sam Fankhauser, currently with the Europeanregional case studies. Bank for Reconstruction and Development, was

kind enough to brief us on the early days of theOur thanks are due to the local consultants in enabling activity projects when he was at thethe 12 countries that we visited, who helped GEF Secretariat.us by preparing the groundwork for the reviewexercise, arranging for meetings with Staff at the GEF Secretariat, UNDP, UNEP, andgovernment agencies and other project the World Bank were willing to spend time withparticipants, including NGOs and academic us sharing their perspectives and insightsinstitutions, and following up on any issues that regarding the GEF and its operations. Particularrequired further inquiry. The consultants who mention must be made of the immenseundertook the regional and country case contribution of William Faries, a consultant forstudies approach their individual assignments the GEF Secretariat, who participated in the datawith utmost professionalism and delivered analysis and in editing and finalizing the reviewstudies that proved very useful in preparing report.the final report. We would also like to thankChemonics International, Washington, D.C., The report was desk-topped by Elizabeth Georgefor identifying and recruiting the consultants. ofthe GEF Corporate Monitoring and Evaluation

Team.The review benefited from discussions withClaire Parker, Martha Perdomo and

SamirAmous Ramesh RamankuttyTeam Leader Task Manager

On behalf of the core team for the GEF Review of Climate Change Enabling Activities

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ............................................................... I........... ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT .......................................................................... iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................... v

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS . ........................................................................... vii

I. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS. IIntroduction .1Review of the GEF Enabling Activity Portfolio for Climate Change .1Overall Findings. 3From COP Guidance to Operationalization. 4Implementation Issues. 8Project Results .12

II. COP GUIDANCE AND GEF RESPONSES .17

Elements of COP Guidance to the GEF Relevant to Enabling Activities .17GEF Response to Guidance from the COP .19Assessment of the GEF Response .21

III. EFFECTIVENESS OF OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES .25Interpretation of the Operational Guidelines .25Applicability and Flexibility to the Countries' Needs .25Effects of Expedited Procedures on Project Processing .26Disbursement Issues .29Dissemination of Operational Guidelines .29

IV. PORTFOLIO OVERVIEW .31Analysis of the Climate Change Enabling Activities Portfolio .31Budget for Administration Costs .32Administrative Support for Project Management from the Corporate Budget .33Executing Agency Fees/Agency Support Costs .34Overall Analysis of the Budget Support Issues .34

V. DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION .35Effectiveness in Meeting the Objectives Set Forth by the Operational Guidelines 35Efficiency of the Project Design Cycle .38Time Constraints .39Funding Constraints .40Roles of the Partners in the Enabling Activity Project Cycle .41GEF Secretariat .42UNDP .43UNEP .46The World Bank .47Implementation of Other Climate Change Work .48Technical Support .50Country Level Implementation Issues .55Assessment of Reporting and Management Procedures .59

V

VI. PROJECT RESULTS ................................................................... 61Technical Products ................................................................... 61Other Achievements ................................................................... 62

VII. GOOD PRACTICES ................................................................... 67Achieving Additional Benefits That Serve Regional and International Concerns ......... 67Achieving Outreach and Information Exchange Benefits

Through the Use of Internet ................................................................... 67Involving the Media in the Public-Awareness Effort .......................... .......................... 68Developing Interaction Between Projects ................................................................... 69Participation in International Training Workshops and International Events ......... ........ 69Enhancing Political Support from the Highest Levels of Government ........... ............... 70Wider Participation of the Stakeholders ................................................................... 70Flexibility in Reallocating Project Funding ................................................................... 71Flexibility in Redesigning the Project Activities ............................................................. 71

A./NNEXES1. Terms of Reference ................................................................... 752. The Review Approach ................................................................... 833. List of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects ................................................................. 874. Documents and References Consulted ................................................................... 905. 1996 Criteria and 1997 Guidelines: Cost Norms ................................................................... 926. Criteria for Reviewing Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects as Included

in Operational Criteria for Enabling Activities - 1996 ................ ......................... 937. Annexes Included in Operational Criteria for Enabling Activities - 1996 ............. ................... 948. Annexes Included in Operational Guidelines for Expedited Financing of

Initial Communications from Non-Annex 1 Parties - 1997 ............. ................... 959. Paragraphs of Decision 1 l/CP.2 that are Relevant to Enabling Activities ............ .................. 9610. Needs and Major Priorities Expressed by the Beneficiary Countries

for the Development of the Future EA Projects ...................... .......................... 9711. Questionnaire for the Survey Undertaken by the Review ................................ ...................... 9912. Synthesis of Views of the Parties Regarding the Review of Climate Change

Enabling Activity Projects ............................... .................................... 107

vi

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ADB Asian Development Bank

ALGAS Asian Least-cost Greenhouse Gas Abatement Strategy

CC Climate Change

CPACC Caribbean Planning for Adaptation to Global Climate Change

COP: Conference Of Parties

COP] First Conference of Parties held in Berlin in March-April 1995

COP2 Second Conference of Parties held in Geneva in July 1996

COP3 Third Conference of Parties held in Kyoto in December 1997

COP4 Fourth Conference of Parties held in Buenos Aires in November 1998

COP5 Fifth Conference of Parties held in Bonn in October-November 1999

EA EnablingActivity

ENDA-TM Environnement et Developpement du Tiers-Monde

EP Expedited Procedure

GEF Global Environment Facility

GEF CEO GEF Chief Executive Officer

GEFSEC GEF Secretariat

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft fir Zusammenarbeit (Germany)

IA ImplementingAgency

NCCC National Climate Change Committee

NCSP National Communication Support Programme

NEP Non-Expedited Procedure

PICCAP Pacific Islands Climate Change Assistance Project

SBI Subsidiary Body for Implementation

SBSTA Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice

SPREP South Pacific Regional Environment Programme

TPR Tripartite Review

UCCEE UNEP Collaborating Centre on Energy and Environment (Riso-Denmark)

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

UNITAR United Nations Institute for Training and Research

UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services

USCSP United States Country Study Program

vii

1. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INTRODUCTION "Measures such as planning and endogenouscapacity building, including institutionalstrengthening, training, research and education,

1. This report presents the findings of a that will facilitate implementation, inreview of GEF-funded climate change enabling accordance with the Convention, of effectiveactivity projects. Funding for climate change response measures."3

enabling activity projects was launched by GEFas a response to guidance from COP 1 4. The enabling activity program was partrequesting the GEF to give priority to supporting of the GEF operational strategy that aimed tonon-Annex I Parties in meeting their support non-Annex I Parties in fulfilling theircommitments under the UNFCCC.2 commitments under the UNFCCC at full cost

funding. According to the GEF Operational2. The commitments of non-Annex I Parties Strategy,4 enabling activities "include [GHG]mainly relate to the preparation of Initial Stries,compilaitonofincludeioGHGiCommunications (IC) to the UNFCCC, which inventories, compilation of informnation, policyrequniresthe implementation of relevant analysis, and strategies and action plans. Theyrequires mainlemengton of reparan either are a means of fulfilling essentialactivities, mainly focusing on:2 (i) Preparation communication requirements to the Convention,of greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories and other provide a basic and essential level of informationclimate change-related information; to enable policy and strategic decisions to be(ii) General description of steps taken or to able pland trat decisies toritenvisaged to implement the Convention; and made, or assist planning that identifies priority(iii) Any other information relevant to theachievement of the objectives of theConvention. REVIEW OF THE GEF

ENABLING ACTIVITY3. The COP guidance was issued as aresponsetoArticle 12.7 ofthe UNFCCC stating PORTFOLIO FOR CLIMATEthat "The COP shall arrange for the provisionto developing country Parties of technical and CHANGEfinancial support, on request, in compiling andcommunicating information under Article 12, 5. This review began in February 2000. Atas well as identifying the technical and financial that time, 115 countries had implementedneeds associatedwith the proposedprojects..." national climate change enabling activityIn the context of climate change, enabling projects, while 1O other regional/global climateactivities were defined by the COP as changeenablingactivityprojectshadalsobeen

I Decision I /CP. 1

2 UNFCCC, Article 12.1.

3 Decision Il/CP.1, item b(i) in document FCCC/CP/1995/7/Add.1, Report to COPI-Berlin, 28 March to 7April, 1995, Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its First Session.

4 Page 9, Operational Strategy, Global Environment Facility, February 1996.

1

Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects

launched. The main objective of the review is achievements across the whole portfolio. Norto take stock of the past and ongoing experience does it provide the final results and impacts inwith the enabling activity projects for climate all the 115 countries supported. However, thechange, assess their effectiveness and extract review was based on a large set of informationlessons for the future. More specifically, the collected from a variety of sources, includingreview had to examine: (i) the effectiveness of consultations with the major actors of thethe enabling activity modality; (ii) the enabling activity process.5 Specifically, theeffectiveness and efficiency of both GEF review approach included: (i) Review of COPapproval and national execution processes; decisions and SBI/SBSTA communications;(iii) influence onbroadercapacitybuilding and/ (ii) Views related to enabling activitiesorplanningincountriesthroughthepreparation expressed by the Parties through theof initial national communication process; and Convention process; (iii) Consultations with(iv) best practices for the implementation of relevant stakeholders (UNFCCC Secretariat,enabling activity projects from country bilateral and multilateral donors, andexperiences. international, regional and local NGOs);

(iv) Country visits by members of the core6. The terms of reference of the review are review team assisted by national consultants;included in Annex 1. Prior to its finalization, (v) Country case studies prepared by nationalconsultations were held within the GEF Secre- consultants; (vi) Regional case studies preparedtariat, the three Implementing Agencies, and by regional consultants; (vii) Questionnairethe UNFCCC Secretariat. As recommended survey; (viii) Review of documentation availableby the COP, the terms of reference paid par- at the three Implementing Agencies (includingticular attention to addressing the questions and the National Communications Supportviews expressed by the Parties with respect to Programme), the GEF Secretariat, and thethe review of enabling activities. The terms of UNFCCC Secretariat; and (ix) Discussionsreference have defined seven major issues to with the three Implementing Agencies and thebe addressed by the review: (i) Response to GEF Secretariat.guidance from the COP; (ii) Effectiveness ofthe Operational Criteria; (iii) Portfolio Over- 8. The review included close examination ofview; (iv) Project Design and Implementation; 18 enabling activity projects. Twelve national(v) Project Results; (vi) Best Practices; and projects were visited by the review core team,6

(vii) Recommendations. four other national projects were covered bycountry studies,7 and two regional projects in

7. The review does not claim to be fully the Pacific Islands and Caribbean' wererepresentative of the actual perforrnance and reviewed by regional consultants.

5 The approach used for undertaking this review is described in detail in Annex 2 of this report.

6 Armenia, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Bolivia, Cameroon, Mali, Lebanon, Lesotho, Philippines, South Africa, Vietnam, andZambia.

7 Egypt, Honduras, India, and Malaysia.

8 Five countries each in the Pacific (Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Samoa and Vanuatu) and Caribbean (Antigua andBarbuda, Barbados, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and The Grenadines, Guyana) were visited/studied by each of the regionalconsultants for the PICCAP and CPACC projects respectively.

2

Summary and Recommendations

OVERALL FINDINGS enabling activity projects made considerableprogress in strengthening the capacities of

9. The overall conclusion of the review is countries to deal with climate change issues.

that support provided by the GEF for climate 13. While the overall impact is positive, thechange enabling activities has substantially enabling activity program experienced manycontributed towards assisting non-Annex I difficulties, largely due to the novelty andParties in meeting their communication complexitieof late cae issue asvell ascommitments under the UNFCCC. The GEF complexity of climate change issues, as well asSecretariat and its Implementing Agencies the constraints that surrounded the developmenthave undertaken a large challenge in a new of enabling activity projects. These constraintsand complex area of international cooperation. included definition ofthe scope and objectivesDespite the complexity of the task and the of the projects, tame pressure, fundingdifficulties encountered, the GEF role has, by limitations, etc. For instance, the review foundand large, been positive. To some extent, thatthe enablingactivity projectsplaced unduemany of the difficulties faced appear to be emphasis on obligations of the countries (i.e."teething" problems. Both the Implementing preparation of the national communication) atAgencies and the GEF Secretariat have theexpenseofrespondingtocountryneedsandlearned from their experiences and their priorities.performance has improved through time.

14. While the results achieved are more than

10. Of the 132 countries that have received the minimum required for initialGEF grants through the enabling activity communications, the GEF-sponsored enablingprocess, 25 have already transmitted their activities are neither a clear step in the directioninitial communication to the UNFCCC as of of sustainable capacity building, nor have theyMay 2000.9 Among these countries, 23 helped countries prepare to develop policies andimplemented enabling activity projects strategies required to deal with climate change.throughi UNDP,te and twothroughi UNEP. A Supporting this finding, the review also foundlarge number of countries are currently that the countries had higher expectations forprogressing towards the completion of their capacity building than what the enabling activityinitial communication for a possible projects could offer.transmission by COP6.

15. Enabling activity projects also focused on

11. The review observes that, for the most achieving other ambitious objectives, includingpart, the qualiew of the documents produced sustainability of capacities, establishment of

under the enabling activity projects was information systems for GHG inventories,satisfactory. In some cases, the quality of the public awareness, sustainability of institutionaldocuments was impressive, and provided not arrangements, and integration of climate changeonly national, but international benefits as concerns into national development policies.well. Many of these objectives-particularly the last

one-have not been satisfactorily completed inany country. Considering the limited funding

12. Capacity building was one of the key alctos hr uaino h rjcs(-objectives of the enabling activity process. allocations, short duration of the projects (1-2The review found undeniable evidence that years), and limited national capacities at the

9 In addition, Kazakhstan has also transmitted its initial communication, although it did not implement any GEF-supported enabling activity project.

10 Six of the 24 UNDP countries completed their initial communication through the PICCAP project.

3


beginning of the process, this review finds that Financing, clearly tying the Activity Matrix andthe enabling activity projects had unrealistic the Cost Norms to the guidelines for nationalexpectations when setting such objectives. communications defined in 1 0/CP.2." Finally,

in response to COP4 guidance, the GEF issued16. Thus, the first round of enabling activities Operational Guidelines for Expeditedshould be considered a first step in a continuous Financing - Part II to comprehensivelyand long-term series of efforts to establish a respond to the capacity building needs of non-sustainable framework for meeting Convention Annex I parties, beyond the initial priority ofobligations while also leading to concrete first national communications.actions.

19. While the elapsed time for the GEF

FROM COP GUIDANCE TO response in these cases may seem long,developing enabling activity projects was a

O PE RATIO NALI ZATIO N novel experience and the GEF needed sufficienttime to define the appropriate approach to

O FINDINGS expediting its procedures. In addition, the COPdecisions tended to cover a large number of

T TheGEFResponsetoCOPGuidance issues at once, giving room for divergentinterpretations and making the process of

17. Three major sets of enabling activity- operationalization very complex.related guidance were issued by the Conferenceof Parties. COP1 (11/CP.1) directed the GEF 20. In practice, the review finds that as soonto give priority to the support of national as the national communication was identifiedcommunications referred to in Article 12.1 of as the main objective of expedited enablingthe Convention. COP2 adopted detailed activity projects, the GEF guidelinesguidelines for the content of the first national adequately responded to the COP guidance.communications from non-Annex I parties (1O/ Thus, despite some uncertainty regarding theCP.2) and confirmed that these new guidelines primary role of enabling activities, the GEFand format would form the basis for the funding response is judged to have been pragmatic andof communications from non-Annex I Parties. timely.At COP4, guidance to the GEF emphasized theneed for funding support to prepare initial and 21. The Operational GuidelinesforEnablingsubsequent national communications "by Activities was developed by the GEFmaintaining and enhancing relevant national Secretariat, in consultation with the threecapacity" (2ICP.4). Implementing Agencies and the UNFCCC

Secretariat, and subsequently approved by the18. The GEF responses to COP guidance took GEF Council. It should be noted that thesebetween 8 and 12 months. Inresponseto COPI consultations did not directly involve theguidance, the GEF developed Operational countries. The review also received mixedCriteria for EnablingActivities. Following the feedback regarding incorporation of the viewsCOP2 guidance, the GEF issued new of the GEF partners'2 by the GEF SecretariatOperational Guidelines for Expedited when drafting the final Criteria.

11 The purpose of the activity matrix is to identify and assess any relevant activities that the GEF and/or other fundingbodies previously supported in the countries.

12 UNDP, UNEP, The World Bank and the UNFCCC Secretariat.

4


I Operationalization of the GEF I Effectiveness of Enabling ActivityGuidelines projects in meeting the objectives set

forth by the Operational Guidelines22. While it was clear to the implementingagencies that the emphasis of the enabling 25. While enabling activity projects generallyactivity projects was on the rapid preparation met the objectives set forth in the Operationalof the initial communication, there were Guidelines, the review team observed thatinstances of divergent interpretations between "country drivenness" was narrowly interpretedthe GEF entities,"3 particularly at the beginning in terms of endorsement of projects by theof the process. national GEF operational focal points, without

appropriate stakeholder consultations and23. In addition, the recipient countries did not assessments of national priorities. This wasalways interpret the GEF guidelines and the part of the trade-off that the expeditedCOP guidance along the same lines as the GEF procedure process has necessitated.Secretariat and the Implementing Agencies.For instance, higher funding support from GEF 26. While most of the national GEF focalwas requested by countries for meeting their points were familiar with the GEF Operationalpriority needs, such as capacity building, or for Guidelines, the review finds that neither thelaunching additional studies in some critical Implementing Agencies nor the GEF nationalaspects of climate change, such as vulnerability focal points made efforts to widely disseminateand adaptation assessments. Such these guidelines within the countries. Thismisinterpretation resulted, in some cases, in often prevented a more effective inclusion oflong negotiations which delayed the overall wider sectoral concerns into the projectproject approval process. This caused proposals.frustration in the countries regarding theeffectiveness of enabling activities in meeting 27. In addition, the use of cost norms alsotheir expectations. presented the countries with a fait accompli,

providing little flexibility and no fungibility of24. The review finds that the Operational funds. There is also concern as to whether theGuidelines placed a strong presumption on the Activity Matrix truly addressed the countries'success of previous enabling activity initiatives, expectations and priorities.whether funded by the GEF or other donors,without any objective assessment ofthe content I Project processingand quality of the products generated by theseprevious efforts. Since participation in earlier 28. The overall objective of introducingprojects was considered as the basis for expedited procedures for enabling activitiesdefining the amount of funding a country would was to reduce project processing time andreceive from the GEF, this was the most provide timely resources to countries to meetfrequently debated issue during project their reporting obligations under thenegotiations between the GEF Secretariat, the Convention. Under the expedited proceduresImplementingAgencies and the countries. On for enabling activities, the GEF Councilcertain projects, unfair competition, mainly delegated the approval authority, for projectsfocusing on the overall funding level, hampered requesting less than US$350,000, to thethe collaborative spirit between the Chairman/CEO of the GEF.Implementing Agencies involved.

13 UNDP, UNEP and The World Bank.

5


29. Duringtheperiod1995-1998,therewasa O RECOMMENDATIONSsignificant decrease (60%) in the time taken toprocess a project under expedited procedures 32. It is recommended that the GEF establish-from an average of 499 days in 1995 to 188 abetter consultative process for the formulationdays in 1998.'4 While each of the main partners of the next GEF guidelines for enabling activity(Implementing Agencies, GEF Secretariat, the projects. This process should allow for a morecountries) are partly responsible for the effective role ofthe Implementing Agencies inexcessive elapsed time during different stages the finalization of the guidelines and a moreof project design and processing, some of this collaborative spirit among all the actors of thedelay can be attributed to a necessary leaming enabling activity process, including theperiod in the implementation of COP guidance countries. In this context, it is suggested that-compounded by a lack of clarity in COP the GEF partners explore adequate ways andguidance-and different interpretations of the means for involving technical experts from theGEF guidelines. recipient countries in these consultations.

30. Nevertheless, this review finds that 188 33. The review finds that greater precision indays for processing enabling activity projects COP guidance and GEF guidelines could go aunder a procedure that is supposed to be long way towards removing ambiguitiesexpedited is still too long. While the GEF associated with the definition and the finalitypartners have considerably decreased the of some terms (e.g. enabling activity, capacityelapsed time at the three initial milestones of building, etc.) and help in an uniformthe project processing cycle,"5 there is room application of the guidelines. In order to avoid

for reducing the elapsed time even further future disappointments, the GEF guidelinesthrough the removal of major bottlenecks at should also be applied more flexibly in the

the two latest milestones, including at the future, particularly with respect to the costcountry level. But any further reduction in norms and activity matrix. However, thisprocessing time needs to be waged carefully in should be accomplished while maintaining alight of the recommendations for broader consistent application both across thestakeholder consultation. Implementing Agencies and the recipient

countries.31. While some countries have complainedof disbursement delays, the review found that 34. The review recommends that a fullerthese occurred in only a few instances and assessment of the quality of climate changerarely affected project implementation. Rather, related activities previously undertaken bemore significant implementation delays have factored into the context when finalizing thebeen caused by issues such as development of level of GEF support. It is also important thatthe budget and work plan, identification of the countries, the Implementing Agencies andconsultants, and establishment of institutional the GEF Secretariat be more focused andarrangements. realistic when setting project objectives and

14 Number of workdays elapsed from date of receipt of the project proposal at the GEF unit of the imple-

menting agency to the date of project start (signature of project document).

15 Five main milestones were identified at the project processing level: (i) Request to IA to Receipt at GEFSEC;(ii) Receipt at GEFSEC to CEO approval; (iii) CEO approval to IA approval, (iv) IA approval to project start; and (v) projectstart to first disbursement.

6


expectations, given the available funding and 38. Themajormilestonesoftheprojectdesigntime horizon. In this context, a more systematic process should be made more transparent,strategy aimed at ensuring the establishment mainly through better sharing of information onof a sustainable enabling activity process should the progress within the design cycle, includingbe defined by COP and operationalized by the the country-level endorsement, so that the mainGEF. partners involved can follow the process closely

and intervene to break unnecessary deadlocks35. Given the quick evolution of the climate if needed. For example, a "project status sheet"change process, and the recurrent evolving could be established and distributed to all theneeds of the countries, the challenge for future relevant people within the GEF Secretariat,GEF enabling activity initiatives is to react Implementing Agencies and the countries,rapidly to changing circumstances. Therefore, highlighting the different steps of the processingadditional efforts are required by the GEF and cycle and the necessary details to identify theits Implementing Agencies to further streamline actual status of the project in the cycle. Whilethe processing of enabling activity projects. greater transparency in the project cycle mightWhile this inevitably implies some trade-offs, it require additional resources, this is a criticalis important that any possible deviation from issue and one which the review recommendsthe original spirit ofthe enabling activity projects that the GEF explore.that may result from these trade-offs isminimized. 39. UNDP has made considerable efforts to

shorten the project processing cycle over the36. The review also recommends that the past five years to remove bottlenecks.' 6

Implementing Agencies and the national GEF However, the elapsed time for projectfocal points disseminate rapidly and widely any processing by lTNDP should be shortened evennew GEF guidelines within the countries, or any further in order to expedite implementation.'7

material that can be relevant for the UNEP also undertook a number of measures,'8

development of the enabling activity project as early as 1996, aimed at expediting theproposals. Also, the countries should facilitate intemalization of its GEF activities, includingthe process of stakeholder consultations, enabling activity projects. However, the reviewnegotiations with the Implementing Agencies, found that for enabling activities managed byand signature and project approval, and remove UNEP there is room for further improvementthe administrative barriers that significantly in processing times.hamper project approval and implementation.

40. In order to facilitate the implementation37. In addition, the review also recommends of these recommendations, it is suggested thatthat a more balanced approach, with appropriate a "Good Practice" manual be developed by thestakeholder participation and consultation and GEF Secretariat and the Implementingan assessment of national priorities, be part of Agencies, addressing the modalities forthe "country drivenness" of project proposals. formulating and implementing enabling activity

16 For instance, many UNDP country offices advanced funds from their own budgets as soon as the project documentwas signed, in order to allow the project to quickly begin. More recently, a new system is being put in place to expeditiouslyprocess the top-up projects but the analysis of this system was beyond the scope of the review.

17 In particular, modalities for the recruitment of consultants, approval of the quarterly financial reports and budgetadvances requests, etc., should be processed by UNDP more efficiently.

18 This included establishing a Project Coordination Committee entrusted with reviewing and adopting GEF activitiesseparate and distinct from UNEP Project Approval Group.

7


projects. This manual should be distributed to provide consistent technical and supervisionthe Implementing Agencies and their support. The GEF seems to have recognizedrepresentatives, as well as to the countries, this weakness. Under the new fee-basedallowing for a uniform interpretation ofthe GEF system, the implementing agencies receiveguidelines. US$54,000 per enabling activity project

towards administrative expenses covering the

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES full project cycle.

0J FINDINGS Roles of the GEF Secretariatand the Implementing Agencies

/ Project duration 44. Thecountries,theImplementingAgencies

and the GEF Secretariat have all played41. The review notes that, with few essential roles in the development ofthe climateexceptions, most countries experienced change enabling activity portfolio. Duringdifficulties in completing their enabling activity project implementation, however, theprojects within the timeframe defined in the involvement of the GEF Secretariat was quiteproject documents. In that respect, expectations limited, while the Implementing Agencies andin terms of project duration were unrealistic. the countries were fully involved.Several factors explain the longer time horizonneededforthe implementationofprojects, such 45. Overall, the needs of the recipientas (i) Starting difficulties (nominating or countries for technical and managerial supportrecruiting a project coordinator, selecting an were higher than originally anticipated in theappropriate team, building the relevant early phase of the program. According to theinstitutional arrangement, etc.); (ii) Availability Implementing Agencies, the GEF guidelinesand reliability of data; and (iii) Longer time did not give room for more substantial supportneeded for the validation of technical outputs to the countries and this prevented them fromby all the concerned stakeholders. allocating the level of human resources that

would have better met country needs./ Funding Issues

46. Given these resource constraints, UNDP42. Thereviewfindsthat,ingeneral,thelevel viewed its role as mainly consisting ofof funding support has been sufficient for the management oversight, with any possiblepreparation of the national communication, and technical contribution provided on an ad-hocother basic documents. However, objectives basis. UNEP responded to the needs forlinked to the sustainability of capacity building technical support, in part, through assistanceand institutional arrangements, as well as the in procuring appropriate consultants andintegration of climate change concerns into advisors. In practice, technical assistance wasnational development policies, were unrealistic provided through consultants hired by thegiven the timeframe and the funding levels. individual projects. While the Implementing

Agencies provided advice and assistance within/ Budget support to the Implementing the limitations of their financial resources, the

Agencies responsibility for implementation and daily

management of projects was that of the national43. The estimated budgetary resources executing agency. GEF later responded to theseprovided for enabling activities to the needs for additional technical assistance byImplementing Agencies are judged to be funding the National Communication Supportinadequate. This might have limited the Program (NCSP).capacities of the Implementing Agencies to

8


47. The UNDP country offices were critical meeting to assess progress based on the APRin ensuring general management oversight, and make management recommendations ifincluding administrative support; serving as a necessary. Nevertheless, as they are presentlyliaison with UNDP New York; and facilitating formulated, the APRs and TPR reports cannotthe development and implementation of the be considered relevant tools for technicalprojects. Even though they had a limited oversight and supervision of the projects.technical contribution at the outset, someUNDP country offices later strengthened their 51. Since UNEP does not have any countryability to address global environment issues by offices, implementation supervision isenhancing their human resources. centralized at the UNEP headquarters in

Nairobi with the support of its regional offices.48. While the modalities of UNEP The major supervision mechanisms for UNEPinterventions are based on direct contact with consists of continuous interaction with thethe national executing agencies, the reaction national project coordinators, and quarterlyof UNEP in addressing institutional or other progress reports that are submitted by thekinds of problems at the national level was project coordinator. However, this review findsusually neither timely nor adequate. UNEP that the quarterly progress reports are notdecided not to interfere in resolving what it substantive and do not clearly identify problemsconsidered as internal institutional issues of the in project implementation. While the projectcountries concerned. For instance, among the manager is usually aware of problems in projectfive UNEP-managed projects visited under this implementation, his broad portfolio and otherreview, three suffered from delays caused by responsibilities often preclude him fromin-country institutional difficulties affecting responding effectively to problems as theyimplementation. develop during implementation.

/ Assessment of Reporting and 52. As for the overall management, the reviewManagement Procedures finds that there is currently no systematic

process in place-except the NCSP, which has49. Overall, the reporting and management a limited lifespan-to obtain a GEF-wideprocedures established by the Implementing understanding of the implementation progressAgencies do not allow for appropriate and results of enabling activities.monitoring and supervision of enabling activityproject implementation, particularly on / Technical supporttechnical issues. To some extent, the NCSPhas contributed to filling this gap. However, 53. The enabling activity projects allowed forthe institutionalization of an adequate reporting an extensive use of national consultants,and management function in the GEF is a originating mainly from academia or affiliatedcrucial issue, while the NCSP has only a limited structures, NGOs, and government ministries.duration. In situations of limited national capacities,

countries sometimes expressed their need for50. In the case of UNDP, supervision of the international expertise. However, the budgetimplementation of enabling activity projects is limitations of the national enabling activitydelegated to the UNDP country offices. As a projects often prevented or limited countriesresult, the major monitoring mechanism for from hiring international experts.UNDP is the Annual Programme/ProjectReport (APR), drafted by the project 54. Where involved, international consultantscoordinator and submitted to the UNDP office contributed to providing technical backstoppingin the country in preparation for the annual support, as well as sharing and transferringTripartite Review (TPR)-a high policy-level experience and knowledge to the national

9


project staff. In general, recipient countries experience related to the crucial issuesexpressed a high level of satisfaction regarding associated with enabling activity projects andthe contribution of international experts. the preparation of the national communication.

All this "capital" will be lost unless the project55. The opportunity to exchange information continues.and experiences via the internet or duringtraining workshops was also perceived by the 58. While the NCSP is filling an essential role,countries as one of the most valuable means the review found that the collaboration betweenfor enhancing their capacities. However, UNDP and UNEP was not perfect, and that thebecause of budget and time constraints, quality of the support provided to enablingexpedited climate change enabling activity activity projects would be considerablyprojects did not place much emphasis on these improved if closer coordination of projecttypes of activities. activities could be established between the two

agencies.56. Many countries reported frustration at thelack of materials and software for carrying out 59. The review noted that there was notechnical studies, or lack of resources to acquire systematic peer-review process of technicalthem, particularly those related to projections reports prepared under the enabling activityand modeling. projects, despite the need expressed by

countries for such assistance. In some cases,57. In view of countries' requests for UNDP did provide such technical assistanceadditional assistance, UNDP took the leading through the NCSP, much to the satisfaction ofrole in preparing a first proposal of the National the recipient countries. In addition, UNEP tookCommunication Support Programme the lead in establishing technical review(NCSP). 19 This program was jointly requirements for sectoral reports within theimplemented by UNDP and IJNEP, and aimed context of enabling activities, though it was notat meeting the additional technical assistance included as a requirement in any of the projectneeds of the countries and identifying the most documents. Initially, UNEP provided technicalappropriate remedial actions to the obstacles reviews to countries using in-house expertiseencountered by non-Annex I parties during the and later encouraged the national projectimplementation of the enabling activity coordinators to seek external reviews withinprojects. During the last year, participating the existing national budgets. UNEP alsocountries have recognized the positive results provided names of potential reviewers andofthe NCSP as having at least partly offset the advice concerning their suitability within thegaps of national enabling activity projects in individual context,terms of technical assistance, although programexecution only started in 1999, while national O RECOMMENDATIONSenabling activity projects began in 1995.However, the NCSP is close to completion 60. With the experience already acquired bywhile country needs for technical assistance, all the partners in the enabling activity process,information exchange, networking, etc., are still enabling activities are expected to face fewerincreasing and evolving. Moreover, the NCSP difficulties in the future. However, the reviewhas accumulated very valuable information and recommends that the duration of future enabling

19 This review does not intend to evaluate the NCSP; an independent evaluation is being undertaken for that purpose.The terms of reference of the review included an item relating to the role of the NCSP in providing appropriate assistance tocountries to address identified gaps in the enabling activity projects. Therefore, it was important to the review to assess towhat extent these gaps have been filled.

10


activity projects be extended to 2.5 years2 t if and means to provide country offices withthe project focuses solely on the preparation greater technical expertise.of national communication, and 3-3.5 years ifadditional activities such as public awareness, 64. This review also recommends that UNEPpolicy integration, or other aspects of capacity strengthen the use of the quarterly report forbuilding are emphasized. supervision purposes and develop a regular

system of visits to countries. A means of61. The review also recommends that ensuring greater and more regular interactionadditional resources be made available for with the UNDP country offices, when relevant,enhancing the capacity building component of should also be developed.enabling activity projects. This could be doneby providing the enabling activity projects with 65. In addition, the review recommends thatthe opportunity to enhance exchanges of the GEF establish an annual stock-takinginformation and experience through, for review of enabling activities, in order to obtaininstance, the participation of country an institution-wide understanding of therepresentatives in international seminars and performance of these projects and improveworkshops, as well as the broadening of overall management.technical training to different groups ofparticipants. 66. Regarding the technical assistance

provided by international consultants, the62. Since the issue of unfair competition review recommends that national enablingbetweentheImplementingAgenciesmayarise activity projects should have access toagain in the future, the review recommends that additional resources allowing countries tothe roles and collaborative practices of the resort to such international expertise whenImplementing Agencies in climate change appropriate.enabling activity projects be better defined.The GEF Secretariat can contribute to 67. Furthermore, in order to providestrengthening the collaborative spirit and continuous backstopping and technicalhelping ensure consistent application of the assistance to projects, the review recommendsguidelines across the agencies. Moreover, the that UNDP and UNEP expand the practice ofGEF Secretariat can also contribute to hiring competent regional experts, orstimulating synergies between the projects by supporting regional centers of excellence, tomaintaining a transparent and accessible assist recipient countries in addressinginformation system and keeping track of all technical enabling activity-related issues,enabling activity projects from the beginning particularly through peer-reviewing of projectof the design process. documents.

63. This review finds that implementation 68. In terms of additional assistance andsupervision at both UNDP and UNEP has room support needed by the countries, while it thefor improvement. For example, the review role ofthe independent evaluation ofthe NCSPnoted that where strong and very qualified that is being undertaken to provide asupport was provided by the UNDP country comprehensive assessment of the NCSP'soffices, the enabling activity projects were performance, this review sees merits in thegenerally very successful. Therefore, the continuation of the NCSP, given its criticalreview recommends that UNDP explore ways

20 It should be noted that the frequency of the preparation of national communications by non-Annex I parties has yetto be decided by the COP. This recommendation is therefore relevant provided that it is consistent with the COP decision.

11


contribution to supporting the enabling activity 72. The experience with participation by civilprogram as a whole. society in enabling activity projects varied

considerably. For instance, the involvement69. In light of the challenges associated with of experts from universities and academicaccess to software, the review recommends that institutions was, in most cases, essential forthe GEF and the Implementing Agencies project progress. On the other hand, in theexplore the various possibilities and mechanisms regional/global enabling activity projects, thethrough which countries could better access NGOs often played a critical role, in theessential software, as well as any associated steering committees as well as in participatingdocumentation and necessary training. in the various activities of the projects.

Regarding the national enabling activity

PROJECT RESULTS projects, NGO involvement was mostlyeffective, however there were also instances ofweak or partial participation. In addition, with

O FINDINGS the exception of consulting firms, the

participation of the private sector was weak/ Stakeholder participation and usually nonexistent.

70. Thereviewfindsthatmajorobstaclesfor / Integration of Climate Changethe enabling activity projects were associated Concerns and Results into Planningwith the establishment of institutional Activitiesarrangements, coordination among the differentministries involved, awareness raising among 73. The review finds that the enabling activitypolicymakers, and a lack of motivation among projects placed unrealistic expectations on suchgovernment representatives to contribute challenging objectives as integration of climatesignificantly to the studies and to report to their change concerns and results into thehierarchy. As a result, project steering development activities of recipient countries,committees often functioned in an isolated particularly with the limited timeframe given.manner. In addition, the enabling activity projects also

placed little emphasis and support on awareness71. The review also notes the weaknesses of raising activities and information exchangeproject documents regarding institutional among and within governmental agencies.strengthening2 1 on climate change matters, ingeneral, and on enabling activities, in particular 1 Capacity buildingdue to inadequate resource allocations andinappropriate activities for achieving these 74. The enabling activity projects havegoals. Thus, countries had limited motivation contributed significantly towards enhancing theto sustain the institutional arrangements scientific and technical knowledge in countries,established during the course of the enabling and to developing new methodologies foractivity projects, including, for instance, addressing climate change. Despite thesekeeping the job responsibilities of trained staff results, many countries have expressedsimilar or even vaguely related to climate concems about the sustainability of the processchange issues. -once the projects complete implementation,

21 For instance, by permanently establishing a key climate change specialist or group in each national institution involvedin the enabling activity project.

12


countries are not sure how to keep the teams assessing the impacts of climate change, andin place for the preparation of the subsequent to design cost-effective adaptation responsenational communications. These concerns measures. The majority of developing countries,were addressed by COP decision 2/CP.4, to in their comments to reviewers, expressed thewhich the GEF Council responded to by need to prioritize work on vulnerabilityapproving additional funding for further assessment recognizing the relative dearth ofsupporting capacity building needs in priority detailed information concerning the impact ofareas.2 2 While the financing granted through climate change on water resources, foodtop-up funding will likely contribute to security and other sectors in developingmaintaining the climate change process, it countries.represents only an interim solution until a morelong term mechanism is defined. 77. Resource and time constraints, as well as

weak institutional motivation, posed critical. Documentaryproducts barriers towards achieving these objectives

during the implementation of enabling activity75. While in many cases, the quality of some projects. Other common issues include a lacktechnical reports was highly satisfactory, of long-term capacity building in appropriatecountries have generally faced serious institutions and insufficient infrastructure, suchdifficulties in this area. Among the factors as monitoring stations for systematicaffecting the quality of the documents, three observation and early warning systems.were identified as critical: (i) uncertaintiesassociated with the quality ofthe basic data, or 78. Development ofprojects for abatement ordifficulties in obtaining them; (ii) insufficient adaptation options is an obvious follow-up oftraining or fading out of knowledge gained from enabling activity projects. However, this is nottraining; and (iii) absence of internal and allowed by the Guidelines despite UNDP'sexternal peer review of documents produced. arguments in favor of developing abatement

and adaptation project proposals as a part of76. Many countries have indicated a need to the enabling activity projects. Though someenhance data reliability through more good examples of investment actions havesystematic data collection efforts. This was, emerged from enabling activities,2 3 enablingfor example, a major constraint in conducting activity projects have not explicitly addresseda sound vulnerability assessment in many concrete investment activities, and the GEF hascountries. In particular, the review notes the not made yet significant steps towards clarifyingneed and importance of allocating significantly this issue,24 though many countries expressedmore resources to assisting countries in their views about this to the SBI.25

22 Operational Guidelines for Expedited Procedure for Enabling Activity Projects - Part Ilincluded a budget ceilingamounting to US$ 100,000. Guidelines for the use of these funds, however, are not clearly established.

23 E.g. ALGAS, PICCAP, Lebanon, Philippines, Thailand, etc.

24 The clarification concerns, for instance, the mechanisms by which countries could proceed with project proposals tofurther develop the abatement'adaptation options identified in their national communications.

25 The documentFCCC/SBI/1999/8 includedthe following statementonpage 14: "(c) On the basis of views expressedby Parties, the SBI noted the information contained in document FCCC/SBI/1999/INF4 and recommended that the 'list ofprojects submitted by Parties not included in Annex I to the convention, in accordance with Article 12.4 of the Convention ".contained in that document should be brought to the attention of GEF and, as appropriate, other bilateral and multilateralfinancing institutions through the established channels for such assistance."

13


V Outreach, information relied too heavily on international consultancydissemination and exchange companies or individuals. This generated

frustration and compounded the weak79. Websites represent a cost-effective and ownership of the regional/global projects byefficient tool for meeting Convention the participating countries.requirements. While several countries had theoption of developing websites, only a few 83. In addition, countries also felt that theyprojects have made provisions to accomplish were penalized for their participation inthis. Furthermore, most of the sites that were regional/global projects. These countries oftendesigned contain little useful information and experienced a dramatic drop in the budgetare not regularly maintained or enhanced. In allocation for their national enabling activityfact, most sites were suspended at the end of project as soon as it was made clear that theythe enabling activity project. In addition, enabling had previously participated in a regional/globalactivity projects have rarely utilized the media project. This situation has led to countriesfor information dissemination and public having a certain aversion to participating in aawareness. regional/global project.

I Implementation of Regional/Global O RECOMMENDATIONSClimate Change Enabling Activities

84. In order to enhance and sustain the80. In addition to the national enabling institutional arrangements of the enablingactivity projects, 10 regional/global enabling activity projects, and to ensure an appropriateactivity projects were initiated by the GEF. integration of climate change concerns intoThoughtheystartedalmostfromscratch,these planning activities, a number of majorprojects have achieved satisfactory results, recommendations can be made:particularly in relation to the four main focusareas: (i) building capacities; (ii) enhancing * Secure strong involvement (not simply aninformation exchange; (iii) establishing and endorsement) at the highest ministerialmaintaining networks; and (iv) building public and political level.awareness.

0 Emphasize public-awareness activities in81. However, the regional/global projects also enabling activity projects directed towardshad some major weaknesses in terms of their decision and policy makers. Appropriatecountry-drivenness, which negatively affected materials should be specifically developedthe ownership of project results. In general, the by the enabling activity projects for thisglobal projects did not involve the recipient purposes.countries in the decision making process duringproject design and implementation, and the . Encourage the establishment of climatemanagement approach of the regional projects change departments or centers to ensurelacked broad participation and information the continuity of climate change studies,sharing. as well as follow-up actions.

82. The countries also felt that the regional/ . Encourage the establishment or the en-global projects put too much emphasis on hancement of National Climate Changemeeting international commitments or regional Committees by providing them with offi-concerns, at the expense of national priorities. cial recognition and entrusting them withIn some cases, the regional/global projects broad climate change-related responsibili-

ties.

14


85. The review also recommends that the activities. Respective roles of the nationalnational climate change enabling activity enabling activity projects and regional/globalprojects improve the emphasis on NGO and ones should also be well defined.private sector participation in the steeringcommittees and in the different project 90. The review recommends that enablingactivities, with a particular emphasis on activity projects give better support to theawareness raising. In addition, linkages development of websites by granting thebetweenprojectsshouldbedevelopedinamore necessary resources for (i) the development ofsystematic manner. sites; (ii) the enhancement of sites by including

all climate change-related information; and86. Most countries view the creation of a (iii) the regular updating of informationnational database as essential to maintaining contained in these sites.capacity and ensuring the continuity of thepreparation of the national communication. In 91. In order to strengthen public awareness,that respect, the review recommends that the review also recommends that enablingenabling activity projects provide for a well activity projects give a more active role toestablished institutional framework with journalists in the different workshops andappropriate regulatory tools and incentives. meetings held by the projects.

87. It is critical that the GEF launches regional 92. Conceming the regional/global projects,projects aimed at improving emission factors in order to enhance country-drivenness andand activity data, and establish an effective ownership, the projects should concretelyprocess for enhancing experience sharing involve the recipient countries in the decisionamong regions. making and management processes. In

addition, priority should be given to the use of88. It is also recommended that the GEF national and regional consultants, or toallocate more significant resources to assisting systematically associate intemational, regionalcountries in undertaking national climate and national consultants.change impact assessments, and to designingrelevant adaptation responses. With respect to 93. There is an inherent risk of harmfulfollow-up actions, it is recommended that the competition between national enabling activity

GEF and its Implementing Agencies establish projects and regional/global projects. In ordera closer dialogue process with the countries in to strengthen the synergies andorder to identify their expectations and prepare complementarity between these two types ofthe appropriate framework towards responding projects, the review finds it necessary to betterto their needs and priorities. differentiate the roles and the objectives of

these types of projects. For example, regional/89. Regarding capacity building, a more global projects could focus on informationstrategic and long-term approach for enabling exchange and network support, capacityactivities should be established by GEF in the building and training, development offuture. In that respect, it is recommended that methodologies, etc. The national projects, inthe COP provide clear guidance on the scope tum, could focus on the preparation of nationalof the capacity building aspect of the enabling documents relevant to the UNFCCC.

15

11. COP GUIDANCE AND GEF RESPONSES

ELEMENTS OF CO P 0Box 1: GUiOANCE TO TH GEFFROM COP

GUIDANCE TO THE GEF -- JS;ON11/CP1

RELEVANT TO ENABLING Par.. b (i) Priority should be given tothefunding d agreed 11 cs (or greed ful.

ACTIVITIES incremental coits, as appropriate} hnurred bydeveoig: country Pars Wi omilt UMtb

94. The text of the United Nations Framework ---- atlons under-the .Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) In the itil peiod, emph should b*was adopted at the United Nations placed on enabing a es undertaken byHeadquarters, New York on May 9, 1992; it a e i inciubingwas open for signature at the Earth Summit in institufIa- strengUieningtrainig, reseaRio de Janeiro from June 4-14, 1992, and ad educafon,.t will 1oatate irmptlente-thereafter at the United Nations Headquarters, tion, in accordance with Fte Convention, ofNew York, from June 20,1992 to June 19, 1993. effoctve response$ nmeres.By that date the Convention had received 166 : - - - _ - -:signatures. The Convention entered into forceon March 21, 1994.

the GEF to give priority to the support of95. Article 21 of the Convention, "Interim national communications referred to inArrangements," entrusted the operation of the Article 12.1 of the Convention (Box 1).28financial mechanism, referred to in Article 11 COP 1 also requested "the subsidiary bodies toof the Convention, to the Global Environment develop for consideration by the ConferenceFacility (GEF) on an interim basis.26 The of the Parties at its second session,UNFCCC Conference ofthe Parties on its First recommendations on guidelines for theSession (COP1) held in Berlin during March- preparation of national communications."April 1995 decided "that the restructured GEFshall continue, on an interim basis, to be the 96. The Conference of the Parties, at itsintemational entity entrusted with the operation Second Session (COP2) in July 1996, adoptedof the financial mechanism... "27 In providing detailed guidelines for the content of the firstguidance to the GEF on funding, COP I directed national communications from non-Annex I

26 The GEF at this time was in its pilot phase, and in entrusting the GEF with the operation of the financial mechanismon an interim basis, Article 21, para.3 of the Convention said that "the Global Environment Facility should be appropriatelyrestructured and its membership made universal to enable it to fulfil the requirements of Article 11."

27 Decision 9/CP. 1, FCCC/CP/I 995/7/Add.l1. Report ofthe Conference of the Parties on its First Session, Held at Berlinfrom 28 March to 7 April 1995, Addendum, Part Two: Action Taken by the Conference of the Parties at is First Session.

28 Decision I I/CP. 1, item b(i) in FCCC/CP/1995/7/Add. I. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its First Session,Held at Berlin from 28 March to 7 April 1995, Addendum, Part Two: Action Taken by the Conference of the Parties at itsFirst Session.

17


Box2:GUiANE T TE GEF FROM COP2 - DEioSIoN 1/CR2

Para1(a) In tie initial period implement strategies on enabling activities in accordance with decisioniIIOPi, which faciitate endogenXous capacity-building, including datacollection andJ archiving,cositeunt hte prolticy uidncie, rormm rirtisa nd eligibilty criteriapoviddto t ythe\fff

Para.1 4c)Together with 0its ImplementitngAgencies, expedite the approval and thdbursementoffinanca a es tomeet the agreedfullcosts incurred by the deeloping countryParies ine ttisplyin ith their oidat under Ae 12.1 ofthe Cnvento,izet acone with Articlen 43,supportf

rtand in particuiar for the Iinitial and subsequent preparation ofnonalommunications of non-Annex iIn tisregard,the guidelines and foormatadopted by the conferenc ofh Partiescatitsy" (

seod esono Tepeprtino ittSnitalaioa communications by non-Annex I Parties co-Viid00tained in decision 1OIP2 shall form the basis for the funding of communicicaton froms non-Annex I

Pariex su i 12.1of thetConvention. ati t m na thi issues an

Para.1d) Consider countspecific needs and other approaches whichnmay beiused formseveraltios tco utrties wFhsimilart needs, uponf reqest, and ttake intoaontithatf the preparationd of natioena

CO nicatieonsd is cnt inprocess.Aecs ( B 4).

Parties. 29 In its guidance to the GEF, COP2 emphasized the need for funding support forreiterated the necessity of meeting thell1 /CP.lI preparing initial and subsequent nationalrequirements and confirmed that these communications "by maintaining andguidelines and formrat would formn the basis for enhancing relevant national capacity" (Box 3) .the funding of communications from non- COP4 also made a provision for non-Annex IAnnex I Parties. Parties to communicate their issues and

concerns regarding initial communications to

97. At the Fourth Conference of the Parties the attention of the GEE and its Implementing(COP4), held in Buenos Aires from Agencies (see Box 4).November 2-14, 1998, guidance to the GEE

SSA:ff00000f00 Box00 3: GUvV IDANCE TO THE GEE OM COP40-DECISION 2/CP4 ;00 0:F00000

1~~ ::

tXPara. 1(d): Meet thet agreed 0fujll :costs of preparing; iinitial andX subsequent natinail ommnunications, i{n 00 iaccodane with Aticles 4.3 and 12.5ofte Covenioan anddecision 1 1C .2 para.1 (d), bymaintaining and eha ncn elvn aioa caaityso as to prepar theinitial and secondi national commntons>0wich *will taknto acoutepeiLences, includ:ing gaps n:td problemsf identifein preiu aXtional f000 comnictins an*d gidlie establisheOd by the Conference ofFthe Partes.Guidance on subsequentnatio:nal communyications will be :provided by the Cnfrenc iof the Pa3rties,i0 z:: ueS0 000 00i0f f XV0A:A Q:A

29 Decision I O/CP.2, Communicati ons from Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention, guidelines, facilitation andprocess for consideration, in document FCCC/CP."1996/15/Add.1, Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Second

Session, Geneva, 8-19 July 1996, Port Two: Action Taken by the Con,ference of the Parties at its Second Session

18

COP Guidance and GEF Responses

during its meeting on 2-4 April, 1996, and it setBox 4: GUIDANCE To THE GEF FROM COP out criteria for enabling activities related to

4-DEclSION 121CP4 national communications.3 0 The OperationalCriteria for Enabling Activities: Climate

Para 1(d) To ensure that issues and concems Change contained six annexes.31 Since theidentified by non-Annex I Parties in their initial guidelines for national communications by non-communications are brought to the attention ofthe Global Environment Facility (GEF) and, Annex I Parties were still under developmentthrough it, as appropriate, its Implementing by the COP, the criteria were proposed on anAgencies, when undertaking the comprehensive interim basis, and based broadly on thereview of enabling activities projects. requirements of Article 12.1, "taking into

account the common, but differentiatedresponsibilities of countries."3 2 The intentionwas to revise the criteria once the guidelines

G E F RESPONSE TO for the non-Annex I national communications

GUIDANCE FROM THE COP had been approved by the COP.

100. There were four criteria for accessing98. In response to guidance from COP1, the GEF funding for enabling activity projects:33

GEF developed Operational Criteria for (i) Coverage without duplication; (ii) Appro-Enabling Activities: Climate Change during priate overall sequencing of activities;1995-1996. The overall objective in (iii) Good practice; and (iv) Cost effectiveness.developing the criteria was to establish anexpedited approval process within the GEF 101. The Operational Criteria was developedwith approval delegated to the GEF Chairman/ by the GEF Secretariat, in consultation withCEO. It should be noted that even while the the three Implementing Agencies and thecriteria were being developed, the GEF UNFCCC Secretariat. In developing theapproved enabling activities for Jordan Criteria, the GEF looked for guidance to past(October 1995), Uruguay (November 1995), experience with the design of earlier enablingArmenia (December 1995), Argentina (January activities, such as the U.S. Country Studies1996), and Egypt (April 1996), following the Program and similar efforts supported by otherprocedures of the GEF project cycle. donors.

99. The Criteria was developed in 102. The process of responding to the COPconjunction with the Implementing Agencies guidance involved the GEF Secretariat, theand the UNFCCC Secretariat. It was presented three Implementing Agencies and the UNFCCCas an information document to the GEF Council Secretariat. The first draft of the Criteria was

30 Enabling activities not related to national communications were not covered by the Criteria; these activities were to beprepared and assessed in the context of GEF Operational Programs.

31 Refer to Annex 7.

32 GEF Council information paper, GEF/C. 7/inf. I O, Operational Criteriafor Enabling Activities, Climate Change.

33 Refer to Annex 6 for more detailed explanations of the four criteria.

19


prepared by the GEF Secretariat and circulated first step in an evolving process of capacityto the other agencies for comments. After a enhancement for countries to meet theirnumber of rounds of comments, the GEF obligations under the Convention.3 5

Secretariat issued the final version of theCriteria, andtransmitted itto the GEF Council 104. Following the COP2 issuance offor approval. It should be noted that no direct guidelines for the preparation of initialconsultations with the countries were communication by non-Annex I Parties inundertaken when adopting these guidelines. February 1997, the GEF issued newThe review also received mixed feedback Operational Guidelines for Expeditedregarding incorporation ofthe views of the GEF Financing of Initial Communications frompartners3 4 by the GEF Secretariat into the final iVon-Annex I Parties. The Operational

version of the Criteria. Guidelines contained six explanatoryAnnexes. 3 6

103. One of the major issues of debate duringthe development of the Operational Criteria 105. The major improvement in the 1997was the extent of capacity building that should guidelines was that the activity matrix and thebe supported under enabling activity projects. cost norms were now very clearly tied to theOne view was that capacity building was guidelines for national communicationsneeded only to the extent required to prepare approved by COP2.37the initial national communications, while thecountervailing view was that capacity building 106. In response to guidance from COP4, theshould be established to help countries move GEF decided that a medium to long term actionbeyond the initial communications and gear up plan should be developed to meet the capacityfor developing policies and strategies required building needs of the countries, beyond theto deal with climate change. In the end, a priority of the preparation of the initial nationalcompromise was reached, whereby capacity communication. In May 1999, the GEFbuilding under the initial communications was Council approved a "Capacity Developmentinterpreted as not just the minimum required Initiative" (CDI)38 aimed at developing suchfor preparing initial communications, but as a an action plan.

34 UNDP, UNEP, The World Bank and the UNFCCC Secretariat.

35 In establishing an overall limit of US$350,000 for enabling activities under expedited procedures, the GEF seems tohave been guided bv the precedence established and endorsed by the GEF Council for approval of Project Development

Funds-Block B (PDF-B) of up to US$350,000 by the GEF CEO. When defining the cost norms, the GEF consulted also

with representatives of similar enabling activity programs, in particular USCSP, GTZ, UCCEE, etc.

36 Refer to Annex 8.

37 Refer to the table included in Annex 5 for a comparison of the cost norms between the 1996 Criteria and the 1997

Guidelines.

38 The Capacity Development Initiative is a strategic partnership with UNDP to develop a strategic, cost-effective and

Convention-responsive framework for capacity building in the global environment. Refer to GEF Council PaperGEF/C/13/9, May 5-9, 1999.

20


107. The GEF Council also approved be supported through enabling activities wereOperational Guidelines for Expedited of critical importance and took considerableProcedures- PartII 39 in October 1999, which time before final resolution. While theaimed at supporting interim measures for US$350,000 ceiling may appear ad-hoc, thecapacity building in priority areas of non- precedence established through the sameAnnex I countries, as identified by Decision ceiling for PDF-B for delegated CEO approval2/CP.4. As a result, eligible countries may seek seems to have paved the way for the GEFup to US$100,000 of GEF funding support for Council to approve the Criteria with a greatthat purpose. Each country may flexibly deal of comfort.allocate the requested amount to the followingactivities, according to its preferences: 109. The Operational Criteria issued in 1996(i) Identification/submission of technology was based broadly on the requirements ofneeds; (ii) Capacity building for participation Article 12.1 of the Convention. This was ain systematic observation networks; pragmatic approach given the pressure to(iii) Improvement of emission factors; provide financial resources to countries to start(iv) Maintenance and enhancement of national preparing enabling activities.4 ' After COP2capacities to prepare national commnunications; adopted detailed guidelines for initial(v) Developing/strengthening/improving communications in July 1996, the GEF issuednational activities for public awareness and the revised Operational Guidelines foreducation, and access to information. Expedited Financing of Initial Commu-

nications from Non-Annex I Parties in

ASSESSMENT OF THE GEF February 1997, taking into account the COP

RESPONSE gui.110. This review finds that the scope of

108. The GEF response to COP I guidance took capacity building under enabling activityone year. While the elapsed time seems long, projects was not very clearly defined, partlyit should be kept in mind that developing reflecting the early debates and attempts atexpedited procedures was a novel experience compromise during the development of thefor the GEF. In addition, the operationalization criteria and guidelines. It was more than theof COP guidance was not an easy task, since minimum required for initial communications,the COP decision tended to cover a large but is not a clear step in the direction ofnumber of issues at once, leaving room for sustainable capacity building for handlingdivergent interpretations. 4 0 Debates and climate change issues. However, in practice,discussions on the level of capacity building to as soon as the national communication was

39 Operational Guidelines forExpedited Financing of Climate Change EnablingActivities -Part II:.Expedited Financingfor (Interim) Measures for Capacity Building in Priority Areas.

40 Refer in particular to Para (b)(i - iv) of decision I I/CP. I (included in Ainex 9 of this document) where some lack ofprecision might have paved the way for divergent interpretations. For instance, para (ii), (iii), (iv) might be interpreted aspriorities for enabling activities, while some may consider them secondary compared to other more national communication-related activities. Moreover, the last sentence of para (b)(iv) has a large scope of activities with expressions such as 'Whichshould, as far as possible, be comprehensive" that may lead to considerably divergent interpretations.

41 As mentioned earlier, the GEF had provided financing to five countries prior to April 1996. During April 1996-February 1997, the GEF provided support to an additional 14 countries.

21


identified as the main objective of enabling initial communication. The final project andactivity projects, particularly those implemented budget will be based on a discussion betweenunder expeditedprocedures, the GEF guidelines the recipient country and the GEFadequately responded to the COP guidance, implementing agency. However, the ambiguityparticularly with regards to the content of the of these new guidelines may lead to majornational communication. In fact, the guidelines misinterpretation by non-Annex I Parties, asrepresent a base document complete and well as by the Implementing Agencies. In fact,explicit enough to take into account the COP the review finds that some critical criteria fordecisions and, at the same time, allow the accessing to this fund could be made morecountries to meet their reporting commitments explicit, including:under the UNFCCC. Thus, despite someuncertainty regarding the primary role of . Is the eligibility for this top-up fundingenabling activities, the GEF response to COPI conditioned by the completion of theand COP2 guidance, on the whole, is judged initial national communication?to have been pragmatic and timely.

. What about the eligibility of the countries111. The GEF response to COP4 guidance took that have previously benefited from a non-one year. The imprecise wording of the COP expedited enabling activity project?guidance has been partly responsible for thisdelay, through misleading linkages with the . What is the exact meaning of paragraphinitial national communication as a basis to 11 regarding the funding limits?identify country needs, and reference toexpected new guidelines for subsequent . Are countries allowed to allocate the fullnational communications to be vaguely budget to a single item?provided later on by the COP. As an interimmechanism, the GEF established these 113. Several countries expressed concernsguidelines to respond to the short-term needs about the operationalization ofthese guidelines.of the countries until appropriate As of July 2000, 26 project proposals wererecommendations emerge from the CDI 42 and received by the GEF Secretariat, and 22 werenew guidelines for the subsequent national approved by CEO.communications for non-Annex I Parties areagreed upon, possibly during COP7. Again, 114. Regarding the response to Decision 12/however, the review finds that the GEF CP.4, the terms of reference for this reviewguidelines were a pragmatic response to the directed the review team to take into accountCOP guidance. "Views expressed by the Parties through the

Convention Process." This review has done112. The new guidelines provide much more that based on documents received from theflexibility for countries to use funds allocated Parties through the UNFCCC Secretariat.4 3

according to the priorities expressed in their

42 The CDI is still ongoing, and an assessment of the CDI is not under the scope of this review. Thus, nojudgment couldbe made on the effectiveness of the GEF response to COP guidance in this area.

43 FCCC/SB1/1 999/M1SC.2, FCCC/SBI/1 999/1NF. 10. Refer to Annex 12 for a synthesis of Views expressed by Parties.

22


115. It should be noted that COP5 issued revised guidelines shall use the revised

decision 8/CP.5, stating that "all Parties that guidelines.""have submitted their initial nationalcommunications before the adoption of revised 116. In response, during May 2000, the GEFguidelines for national communications, and Council approved an approach employing thewish to start the preparation of their second procedure and operational criteria used for thenational communications before the seventh initial communications, 45 but with somesession of the Conference of the Parties, may modifications that are being developed:do so using the initial guidelines; that the (i) inclusion of additional activities, if theGlobal Environment Facility (GEF) shall country chooses, on the basis of decision 2/CP.4provide funding for the preparation of the to be reflected in a new activity matrix; andsecond national communications of such (ii) absence of prescribed cost-ranges for lineParties, following the guidance to the GEF set items. As in the case of the CDI, an assessmentout in decisions 11/CP 2 and 2/CP 4, and that of the response to COP5 guidance is beyondsuch Parties which start to prepare their second the scope of this review.national communications after adoption of the

44 FCCC/CP/1999/6/Add. 1.

45 GEF/C.I 5/8, Annex B.

23

Ill. EFFECTIVENESS OF OPERATIONAL

GUIDELINES

INTERPRETATION OF THE guidance along the same lines as the GEFSecretariat and the Implementing Agencies.

OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES For instance, several recipient countriesexpressed a need for higher funding support

117. Despite the debate and eventual fromtheGEF, stressingtheirpriorityneeds for:compromise on the scope of capacity building (i) capacity building; (ii) enhancement andactivities, the GEF guidelines reveal a special improvement of the studies that were carriedemphasis on activities that relate directly to the out previously; and (iii) launching of additionalpreparation of the initial communication. There studies related to climate change aspects, inwas a particular effort to avoid duplication and particular those addressing data collectionto seek complementarity with activities process, as well as vulnerability and adaptation.previously undertaken by other initiatives, suchas GEF regional/global projects or projects 120. It should be also stressed that during thefinanced by other donors.46 early learning phase, none of the key players

(GEF Secretariat, Implementing Agencies and118. Initially, there were conflicting the countries themselves), had a precise ideainterpretations of the GEF Guidelines between of specific country needs related to the nationalthe Implementing Agencies and the GEF communications and of the most appropriateSecretariat, particularly in relation to issues that ways to meet these through GEF funding. It isaffect the level of funding, such as the level of only with the benefit of hindsight that the GEFsupport to be provided to capacity building and Secretariat and Implementing Agencies haveto activities that received parallel support from become more aware of the specific countryGEF or other donors. Eventually, however, a needs. On their part, the countries nowcommon ground was established, particularly demonstrate better understanding andwith respect to the rapid preparation ofthe initial appreciation of the parameters associated withcommunications. Since climate change enabling GEF financing of enabling activities.activities deal with complex technical issues,the UNDP country offices, which were at the APPLICABILITY ANDforefront of dealing with the countries, had toseek advice and guidance from UNDP HQ in FLEXIBILITY TO THEinterpreting the guidelines. This led, in some COUNTRIES'cases, to long negotiations between the NEEDScountries, the UNDP and the GEF Secretariatwhich delayed the project approval process. 121. The Activity Matrix,47 included in the

Operational Guidelines, helped project

119. In addition, the recipient countries did not proponents identify and summarize the activitiesalways interpret the guidelines and the COP relevant to the preparation of initial national

46 Refer to "Coverage without duplication" in Operational Criteria 1996, and "Building upon existing activities andknowledge" in Operational Guidelines for Expedited Procedures, 1997.

47 Refer to Annex C of Operational Guidelines for Expedited Procedures, 1997.

25


communications previously carried out in the help in a more consistent application of thecountry. GEFsupportthroughenablingactivity guidelines and cost norms among theprojects were designed to complement these ImplementingAgencies.activities in preparing the initial communication.While the identification of earlier activities that 124. It is also recommended that the GEFmight be relevant to national communications Secretariat improve the consultative process forwas not an issue for the completion of the the formulation of the next GEF guidelines foractivity matrix, the review finds that enabling activity projects. This process shouldOperational Guidelines placed a strong allow for a more equitable role for thepresumption on the success of these previous Implementing Agencies in the finalization ofenabling activity initiatives, despite not having the guidelines and a more collaborative spiritany objective assessment of these efforts. between them. In addition, the process of

preparing the guidelines should better take the122. The real content and quality of the products countries' needs and interests into account andgenerated by these previous initiatives could not not only lay emphasis on their obligations.48 Inbe appropriately and objectively assessed during this context, it is suggested that the GEF partnersthe project design phase. In practice, countries explore adequate ways and means for involvingfound it difficult to justify their needs to a group of technical experts from the recipientundertake a given activity a second time, even countries in these consultations.in cases where such needs were legitimate.Given the pressure to prepare and implement EFFECTS OF EXPEDITEDenabling activity projects rather quickly, theywere generally forced to accept the rules PROCEDURES ON PROJECTimposed by this matrix.

PROCESSI NG123. The level of funding was the mostfrequently debated issue during project 125. Theoretically, countries could, if theynegotiations between the GEF Secretariat, the wished, request more than US$ 350,000 of GEFImplementing Agencies and the countries. support for enabling activity projects followingDifferences in interpretation among the key the full project cycle procedure of the GEF.players and some degree of competition While 14 countries had already obtainedbetween the two Implementing Agencies led funding for enabling activity projects underto prolonged negotiations on certain projects. normal procedures before the new guidelinesThe emphasis on the level of funding rather for expedited procedures were issued inthan on technical matters has sometimes February 1997, no single enabling activityharmed the spirit of enabling activity portfolio project has been developed under the normaldevelopment. Consequently, the review finds procedures of the GEF project cycle since thatthat greater precision in COP guidance and GEF date. The disadvantage of this route comparedguidelines could go a long way towards to expedited procedures is that, because of theremoving ambiguities associated with the funding level, it requires GEF Councildefinition and the finality of some terms (e.g. approval, and hence longer processing time.enabling activity, capacity building, etc.), and For instance, for the 14 existing non-expedited

48 Annex 10 presents some of the needs expressed by the recipient countries and their major priorities for thedevelopmentof the future enabling activity projects.

26

Effectiveness of Operational Guidelines

projects it took an average of 456 working days proposal at the GEF unit of the Implementingbetween receipt of the project proposal at the Agency to the date of project start in theGEF Secretariat to the first disbursement. country) for projects under expedited

procedures. Figure 1 depicts the average126. The logic behind introducing the expedited elapsed time on a yearly basis. During theprocedures for enabling activities was to develop period 1995-1998, there was a significanta system whereby the GEF Council delegated decrease (60%) in the amount of time taken toapproval authority for projects to the GEF CEO, process a project-from an average of 499 daysprovided the GEF funding requested was less in 1995 to an average of 188 days in 1998. Thethan US$350,000 and the project design was decrease of the elapsed time mostly occurredaccording to guidelines/criteria acceptable to the in the early stages (i.e. 35 % occurred duringCouncil. The overall objective was to reduce the period 1995-1996), with the initialproject processing time and provide timely introduction of expedited procedures. In 1997,resources to countries to meet their reporting the decrease in elapsed time was more modestobligations under the Convention. However, it (16%), while in 1998, a considerable effort wasshould be noted that the expedited procedures made and the elapsed time decreased by 31 %focused only on one section of the project relative to 1997.formulation cycle-from receipt of proposal atthe GEF Secretariat to the approval by the GEF 128. Despite the significant decrease inCEO, while the other sections of the project processing time under expedited procedures,cycle were unaffected by this procedure. it is difficult to confirm whether the expedited

procedures have actually reduced processing127. An analysis was conducted of elapsed times in relation to non-expedited procedures.project processing time (number of workdays A small sample size of projects under non-elapsed from date of receipt of the project expedited procedures, all undertaken early on

Fig. 1 Average Total Elapsed Time for Project Preparation(n (expedited procedures)co 600.

v ~~~~400 ,--02

0

E .

1995 1996 1997 1998

M Average 499 324 272 188

DMedian 537 316 260 169

Number of Projects 7 26 31 8

Note: Total elapsed time is the number of working days between receipt of a proposal at the IA-GEF unit in the country tothe date of project start in the country. The chart was prepared using a total sample of 72 projects in the portfolio for whidithe relevant dates were available.

27


in the enabling activity portfolio development under expedited processes is still too long,53

(i.e. 1995-96) make comparisons with the and that there is room for reducing it further.expedited procedures impossible. For instance, UNDP has made efforts to remove

the bottlenecks affecting the project processing129. In order to identify bottlenecks in the cycle over the past five years. However, theprocessing cycle for expedited projects, an elapsed time for project processing by UNDPanalysis was also conducted of the elapsed should be shortened even further in order totimes between major milestones in the enabling expedite implementation .54 But any futureactivity projects cycle. The analysis reviewed reduction in processing time needs to bethe whole period from 1995-98.49 In this weighed carefully in light of thesample, about 77% of the time spent between recommendations for broader stakeholderthe first and third milestones of the project consultation.cycle5 0 was spent in processing within theImplementing Agency. It is in these three 131. Given the quick evolution of the climatemilestones that the most significant decrease change process, and the evolving needs of thein total elapsed time has been made over time.5' countries, the challenge for future GEFOn the other hand, the fourth and the fifth enabling activity initiatives is to react rapidlymilestones represent 37% of the project to changing circumstances. Therefore,processing for the whole period 1995-98, and additional efforts are required by the GEF tothese are where no improvements at all were further streamline this processing. Also, themade across the years,52 and thus where there countries should facilitate the process ofare still important opportunities for future stakeholder consultations, negotiations with theimprovement. Implementing Agencies, signature and project

approval, and remove the administrative130. Overall, this review finds that the elapsed barriers that significantly hamper projecttime for processing enabling activity projects approval and implementation.

49 Note: Linkages of these analysis with figure I should be made cautiously. Figure I has a sample size of 72, whilebecause of a lack of data (or reliable data) for the different stages of project processing, the analysis conducted in thisparagraph and the following ones are based on a smaller sample size of 43 projects. However, the structure of the twosamples across the agencies and across the years is almost similar. Also the years 1996 and 1997 represent 79% of thepopulation for both the two samples, though the 43 projects sample slightly under represents the year 1996.

50 Five main milestones were identified at the project processing level: (i) Request to IA to Receipt at GEFSEC; (ii)Receipt at GEFSEC to CEO approval; (iii) CEO approval to IA approval, (iv) IA approval to project start; and (v) projectstart to first disbursement.

51 For instance, there was a 41% decrease in the elapsed time within these three milestones between 1996 and 1997.

52 UNDP maintained that the longer time elapsed from CEO approval to IA approval in its projects is used to agree andspecify financial and implementation arrangements among project partners.

53 For UNDP, for instance, several reasons explain delays affecting project starting, including rigidity of the modalitiesfor the recruitment of consultants as well as for the approval modalities of quarterly financial reports and budget advancesrequests, etc. In addition, UNDP argues that their concerns for financial accountability and control explains the delay in thisstage of the project cycle.

54 Associated difficulties at the country level should also be mentioned: appointment of the national execution agency,appointment of national project coordinator, opening of a bank account for the projects, preparation of a work and budgetplan to conform to the requirements of the project document and UNDP/UNEP regulations.

28

Effectiveness of Operational Guidelines

DISBURSEMENT ISSUES with the GEF Operational Guidelines. In fact,the GEF Secretariat, in collaboration with the

132. In order to facilitate prompt Implementation Agencies and the UNFCCC

commencement of project implementation, the Secretariat, had launched an outreach processGEF made a decision to proceed with an through which the Parties were informed of theimmediate 15% disbursement to the enabling Guidelines and hard copies of the documents

were distributed. In addition, the Implementingactivity project once approved by the GEF Agencies systematically transmitted theCEO. However, it should be noted that this Operation alGlnesy tharticp atindecision could not be implemented because the countries as soon as they began consultationsrules of the Implementing Agencies do not trepas en acthey bects.allow for any disbursement prior to signature to prepare enabling activity projects.of the project document by the country.5 5 135. However, the review finds that th

Operational Guidelines transmitted to the GEF133. While some countries have complained focal points were not disseminated withinof disbursement delays, the review found that countries, and the project design largelythese occurred in only a few instances and involved the concerned implementing agencyrarely affected project implementation. 5 6 and often a single national representative.Rather, more significant implementation delays Consequenty stnehle pationaduringhave been caused by issues such as Consequently, stakeholder participation dunngdevelopment of the budget and work plan, project design was very limited, and oftenidentification of consultants, and establishment prevented a more effective inclusion of sectoralofienstifitionalfcoransultnts,anesablshen concems into project proposals. In practice,of institutional arrangements. the urgency to prepare proposals prevented both

the Implementing Agencies and their nationalDISSEMINATION OF counterparts from establishing a consultative

process within countries during projectOPERATIONAL GUIDELINES preparation.

134. This review finds that most countryrepresentatives could access and were familiar

55 The project document represents a type of contract between the country and the implementing agency, and it definesthe responsibilities and liabilities of each Party to this contract.

56 For instance, many UNDP country offices were asked by UNDP-New York to advance funds from their own budgetsas soon as the project document was signed, in order to avoid any disbursement delay and allow for quick project starting.

29

IV. PORTFOLIO OVERVIEW

ANALYSIS OF THE CLIMATE explicitly geared towards developing initialcommunications.

CHANGE ENABLINGACTIVITIES PORTFOLIO 138. As of May 31, 2000, the GEE had

ACTIVITIES PORTFOLIO approved climate change enabling activityprojects in 132 countries totaling about US$72

136. The GEE Operational Strategy describes million, of which:enabling activities as broad capacity buildingfor non-Annex I countries: "enabling activities (a) The largest amount of money-US$36-which include inventories, compilation of million (50% of the portfolio)-wasinformation, policy analysis, and strategies and approved through 10 regional/globalaction plans-represent a basic building block proj ects;of GEF assistance to countries. They eitherare a means of fulfilling essential (b) 100 projects amounting to a total ofcommunications requirements to a Convention, US$25 million (35% ofthe portfolio) wereprovide a basic and essential level of approved following the Operationalinformation to enable policy and strategic Criteria and expedited procedures; anddecisions to be made, or assist planning thatidentifies priority activities within a country. (c) About US$11 million (15% of theCountries thus enabled will have the ability to portfolio) was allocated to 15 projects,formulate and direct sectoral and economy- approved following full projectwide programs to address global environmental procedures.5 8

problems through a cost-effective approachwithin the context of national sustainable Table 1 depicts a synthesized overview of thedevelopment efforts."57 GEF climate change enabling activity portfolio.

137. The GEF focus on capacity building has 139. UNDP implements the vast majority ofexisted since the earliest days of the pilot phase. the enabling activity projects-two-thirds ofMany enabling activity projects, though not the portfolio in terms of the share of fundsdirected explicitly towards the development of approved. UNEP comes a far second with aboutinitial communications to the UJNFCCC, were one-fifth of the portfolio; the World Bankapproved during the pilot phase. Several accounts for just 12% of the portfolio. UNDPregional/global projects and full projects fall also dominates the portfolio in the differentunder this category. Following explicit modalities that were employed to supportguidance from COPI and COP2, the GEF enabling activities. In that respect, UNDPdeveloped expedited procedures and guidelines accounts for:to support enabling activities that were

57 GEF Operational Strategy, 1996, page 1.

58 These are projects that were approved either before the development of the Operational Criteria and expeditedprocedures or exceeded US$350,000 in funding request.

31


TABLE 1. GEF PORTFOLIO OF CLIMATE CHANGE ENABLING ACTIVITIES

-X X 09' M' W alProjects approved under expeditedr rocedures

,ubrf et 779 0 9 22:>0 t'4.10;0000 tOO 1',>0'

Total Cost $18,831,382 $6,041,700 $349,500 $25,222,582

Number ol proiects 14 0 1 15

TtstCost 999062lll000 0 20000''0209 11t0690009'

Regional/Global Projects _

Total Cost $20,040,000 $9,700,000 $6,300,000 $36,040,000

Total Number of enabling activity 97 25 3 125rojects ____________

(a) More than half of the regional/global BUDGET FORprojects portfolio; ADMINISTRATION COSTS

(b) Three-fourths of the funding allocated toexpedited projects; and 140. The components of budget support

received by the Implementing Agencies from(c) 82% of the funding allocated to non- the GEF Secretariat for managing climate

expedited projects. change enabling activities are summarized inTable 2. Information on amounts provided

FIG. 2: SHARE OF GEF-FUNDED CLIMATE CHANGE ENABLING ACTIVITY PROJECTSAMONG THE IMPLEMENTINGAGENCIES (°O)

The Wodd In terms of funding share In terms of the number of projectsBank T~~~Ihe WoldB k

12%6 ~> 2%

J 6NE:20%%

66%

UNDP22t/o 678%

32

Portfolio Overview

TABLE 2. ESTIMATED BUDGET SUPPORT TO THE IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES FOR CLIMATECHANGE ENABLING ACTIVITIES - EXPEDiTED PROCEDURES

Wfldw .UNOP L.v~ . ..

1 GEF Corporate Budget $12,877 $758,705 $157,606 $929,188

AgerwY Fees 143Totaf Support to implementirig Agencies $12,877 $1,374,107 $640,918 $2,027,902_

4 Number ofi bmate §agng0 g A. e _ 1 77 22 100:

5 Average Project Support (3/4) $12,877 $17,846 $29,133 $20,279

Avea GEfsMocatio per EnabgrVActvity $ ,600 $244,563 $274,009

7 Average Project Support Rate (5/6) 4% 7% 11% 8%

Notes:

v Due to difficulties in separating the GEF budget corporate support that is specifically allocated to climate change enablingactivity projects, this table presents only estimated figures. The estimates were made using a staff-week costing and somepartial numbers of staff-week that are projected to be allocated to climate change enabling activity projects, as estimated by theImplementing Agencies (refer to the footnote in the previous page). It should be noted that the estimates are a lower boundestimate, as no activity based resource provisions could be estimated from the FY96 and FY97 budgets;

/ The Agency fees are estimated using the Agency fee rates of 3% and 8% for UNDP and UNEP respectively:

I It should be noted that this table includes only enabling activity projects processed under expedited procedures. To reflect theeffective support that is provided to the Implementing Agencies for the enabling activity projects, some consideration should begiven to the resources provided to UNOP through the NCSP. UNEP, on the other hand, does not receive any agency fee fromNCSP.

through the GEF Corporate budget was through the Corporate Budget for climateprovided by the GEF Secretariat and the change enabling activities. Climate enablingImplementing Agencies, while the fees charged activities, particularly those approved throughon a per project basis was supplied by the expedited procedures, entered the GEFImplementing Agencies. The former amounts portfolio in fiscal year 1996. The GEF did notare provided to the Implementing Agencies follow full activity based budgeting until fiscaldirectly from GEF Corporate budget while the year 1999, when 4.6 staff weeks (costed atlatter are deductedfromthecountries' enabling $5,382 per staff week) was provided peractivity grants. enabling activity; there was only partial

activity-based budgeting during fiscal year

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT 1998.59 These resources were provided tosupport the development, preparation,

FOR PROJ ECT MANAG EM ENT implementation and monitoring and evaluationof enabling activities, including hiring regional

FROM THE CORPORATE coordinators and consultants (not consultants

BUDGET within countries, however, which were fundedfrom the enabling activity grants). Theestimates for GEF Corporate budget resources141. It was not possible to obtain a clear

estimate of the financial resources provided in Table 2 are thus only partial, and are a lower

59 According to the GEF Corporate budget for FY98, UNDP provided 1.5 staffweeks per enabling activity projectprocessing; UNEP estimated 2 staffweeks for the same activity; there are no coefficients for the World Bank implementedenablingactivities. During this study, UNDPprovided statistics claimingthat atotal of 103.5 staffweeks (costed at $4,724)and 216.2 staffiveeks (costed at $5,382) were provided for enabling activities (both biodiversity and climate change) infiscal years 1998 and 1999 respectively. This involves support to development and monitoring of 125 projects in FY98 and165 projects in FY99.

33


bound estimate, as no activity based resource is provided to UNDP field offices if theyprovisions could be estimated from the FY96 are asked to assist in the implementationand FY97 budgets. of the projects.6'

EXECUTING AGENCY FEES/ OVERALL ANALYSIS OF THE

AGENCY SUPPORT COSTS BUDGET SUPPORT ISSUES

142. Each IA charges a different amount for 143. The estimated budgetary resources"executing agency fees/agency support costs": provided for enabling activities to the

Implementing Agencies are judged to be* The World Bank did not charge any fee. inadequate, particularly for UNDP and the

World Bank. This might have limited the

* In the case of UNDP, when the project is capacity of the Implementing Agencies tounder national execution, up to 3% is provide relevant technical and supervisioncharged by the UNDP country offices for support.6 2 The GEF seems to have recognizedsupport/procurement services where this weakness. Under the new fee-basedrequested.6 0 system, the Implementing Agencies receive

US$54,000 per enabling activity project

* UNEP charges 8% per enabling activity towards administrative expenses covering thefor execution by UNEP, from which 3% full project cycle.

60 If the project is executed by UNOPS, an 8% fee is charged. It should be noted that only four national climate changeenabling activity projects were executed by UJNOPS.

61 According to a United Nations General Assembly decision, UNEP charges 13% overhead on non-GEF projects that itimplements.

62 Negotiations for a fee to the administrative budget of the Implementing Agencies for the up to $100,000 top-up forenabling activities are still under way.

34

V. DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

E FFECTIVE N ESS IIN MEETING the objectives of enabling activity projects,beyond the preparation of initial

THE OBJECTIVES SET FORTH communications, were unrealistic.

BY THE OPERATIONAL 145. Five principles have guided the design of

OUIDELINES enabling activity projects. The first principle,emphasizing a strong focus on the production

144. The review finds that after a brief learning of initial national communications, 6 3 wasperiod, the Operational Guidelines rapidly generally applied by the Implementingbecame the basic reference document for the Agencies in accordance with GEF guidelines.0M

development of enabling activity project The second principle relates to the use of theproposals. Enabling activity projects generally guidelines as a basis for determining themet the objectives set forth in the Operational activities to be included in the enabling activityGuidelines, with the following observations: projects. As a result of the near universal

application of the guidelines by recipient

(a) "Country drivenness" of enabling activity countries and the Implementing Agencies,projects were narrowly interpreted in enabling activity projects were developed along

terms of endorsement of projects by the very similar lines. Most projects contained, innational GEF operational focal points; a generic way, the following types of activities:

(b) There was a presumption regarding the * Greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory;success of previous/ongoing activitiesrelated to climate change in the country * Vulnerability assessments, policy optionswhen determining the level of GEF sor monitoring systems, and responsesupport under enabling activity projects; strategies;

(c) While the cost norms, in general, . Policy options to address GHG abatementadequately covered the activities strategies;necessary for preparing initialcommunications, they provided little * Policy frameworks for implementingflexibility; adaptation and abatement measures and

response strategies;

(d) Given the limitations of funding and theproject implementation period, several of * Capacity building to integrate climate

change concerns into planning;

63 Para. 7 of Operational Guidelines: "Enabling Activities not related to national communication are not addressed inthese operational guidelines."

64 In that respect, the design of enabling activity projects correctly responded to the COP guidance, which focused onproviding priority support for the preparation of the initial national communication. However, the COP guidance alsomentioned "....and other relevant commitments under the Convention," but this seems to have been omitted by the GEFGuidelines.

35


* Efforts related to sustainable is obviously a necessary, but not a sufficient,development, research, raising public indication of country drivenness. A moreawareness, etc.; and balanced approach, with appropriate

stakeholder consultations and an assessment of* Provision of other information (e.g. national priorities related to the preparation of

identification of the technical and the national communication, would enhancefinancial needs associated with proposed country drivenness.projects and response measures, material/data relevant for the calculation of global 148. The fourth principle is linked to the goodGHG emission trends, financial and practice of "Building Upon Existing Activitiestechnological needs and constraints and Knowledge" through the use ofthe activityassociated with the communication of matrix as "the basic building blocks of theinformation, etc.). enabling activity."66 The purpose of this matrix

is to identify and assess any relevant activities146. The third principle relates to the review that the GEF and/or other funding bodies hadof project proposals, which was to be made by previously supported, using informationthe GEF Secretariat, the Implementing available from the CC:INFO data base,67 withAgencies and the UNFCCC Secretariat.6 5 the assumption that "these previous or ongoingThese reviews were supposed to ensure that a enabling activities would have succeeded innumber of good practices were followed, providing sufficient capacity in the categoryincluding (i) Country drivenness; (ii) Use of they deal with." The role of the enablingestablished guidelines; (iii) Complementarities activities would then be to supportwith existing activities; (iv) Appropriate complementary activities which would supportsequencing of activities towards preparing the preparation of the initial nationalinitial communications; (v) Efficiency in the communication. This rule was effectivelyuse of financial resources, with GEF financing applied by the Implementing Agencies and thefor the agreed full cost being available for any GEF Secretariat, as recommended by the GEFeligible enabling activity; and (vi) Use of local guidelines. However, the assumption that theseand regional experts, wherever available and previous/ongoing enabling activities werewhenever possible. successful might have been somewhat

misplaced. Many of these efforts were not fully147. There is room for improvement in the assessed and were rarely based on objectiveapplication of some of these good practices. criteria such as the quality of technical outputs,For example, the country drivenness criteria level of national participation, countrysimply consisted of asking the recipient country drivenness, sustainability of capacity building,to endorse the project by transmitting a letter institutional arrangements, endorsement of theof support from the GEF operational focal point results by the main stakeholders, etc.68

in the country to the GEF. Written endorsement

65 The STAP was also mentioned in the Operational Guidelines as one of the actors involved in the review of projectproposals. However, this participation has not occurred given the limited funding levels provided for expedited projects.

66 Operational Guidelines for Expedited Financing of Initial Communications from Non-Annex I Parties- Annex C:The activity matrix.

67 This database was maintained at the time by the UNFCCC Secretariat.

68 Refer to additional analysis in section "Applicability and Flexibility to the Countries' Needs" in Chapter 111.

36

Design and Implementation

149. The fifth principle is linked to the good this approach significantly shortened the designpractice of "Efficiency in Use of Resources" phase of the enabling activity projects, theunder which the GEF is expected to deliver trade-off was that it left little initiative to thesupport in an efficient manner. Annex D in the countries to develop project proposals thatOperational Guidelines contains a table would better conform to their particular needs.highlighting "Typical cost ranges for expedited However, the review finds that this particularprocessing of Initial National Communications trade-off placed undue emphasis on theproposals," which was generally used with the obligations of the countries (i.e. preparation ofactivity matrix during project design to define the national communication, minimization ofthe funding allocated to each activity. In most the project's duration), at the expense of thecases, this principle was applied rigorously by country's own needs and priorities.the Implementing Agencies and the GEFSecretariat. While the cost norns, in general, 151. The enabling activity projects alsoadequately covered the activities necessary for focused on achieving other ambitiouspreparation ofthe national communications, the objectives, including sustainability ofnorms also presented the countries with afait capacities, establishment of informationaccompli, providing little flexibility and no collection and updating systems for GHGfungibility of funds. There is also a question as inventories, sustainability of institutionalto whether these reference tables truly address arrangements, and integration of climatethe countries' expectations and priorities, and change concerns into national developmentto what extent they resulted in frustration within policies. Many of these objectives-the countries and affected the overall project particularly the last one-have not beenresults. In order to avoid any additional satisfactorily completed in any country.disappointment, COP guidance should be made Considering the limited funding allocations,more clear and the GEF guidelines more flexible short duration ofthe projects (one to two years),in the future on these critical budgetary issues. novelty of climate change issues in recipient

countries, and the limited national capacities150. The operationalization of these five at the beginning of the process,7 0 this reviewprinciples has worked well, with few finds that the enabling activity projects hadexceptions. In practice, the Implementing unrealistic expectations when setting suchAgencies have simply transmitted a copy of the objectives.Operational Guidelines to the national GEFoperational focal point and, when available, an 152. During the project implementation phase,example of an enabling activity project initiated some flexibility was given to the countries inby another country that already went through making adjustments to their initial budgetarythe initial steps of project formulation and allotments. In fact, the Implementing Agenciesapproval. The project design often skipped the usually approved requests for budget revisionsproject brief step, which was supposed to made by the countries, provided thatidentify country needs, and jumped directly to Implementing Agencies were consulted andthe formulation of project proposals.6 9 While involved in the decision and that the suggested

69 Some projects were largely inspired by project documents developed in other countries, using for the sake ofsimplification, a "cookie-cutter" approach.

70 Depending on the situation, "Limited national capacities" may imply a lack of competence in specific climate change-related fields and/or an inability for the most capable staff to dedicate their time to climate change issues at the expense ofother priority tasks.

37


revisions fit into the project objectives and consultations should be encouraged and takescope. In practice, project coordinators have time, a long period of project processing mayrequested only minor shifts between budget negatively affect the quality of the final projects,lines and activity plans when compared to the since several elements of the project documentoriginal budget that was defined by the project initially defined may not be relevant for thedocuments." While most coordinators might country when finally implemented. In addition,have appreciated additional flexibility and the countries as well as the GEF may have newpossible fungibility between budget lines, they COP guidance to address. Refer to Chapterwere willing to implement the project within III for a detailed analysis of project processingthe constraints of the budget initially elapsed times.approved. 7 2

155. While each of the main players153. To summarize, the review recommends (Implementing Agencies, GEF Secretariat, thethat: (i) a more balanced approach, with countries) are partly responsible for theappropriate stakeholder participation and excessive elapsed time during different stagesconsultation and an assessment of national of project design and processing, some ofthesepriorities be part of the "country drivenness" delays can be attributed to a necessary learningof project proposals; (ii) a fuller assessment of period in the implementation of COP guidancethe quality of climate change related activities -compounded by a lack of clarity in COPpreviously undertaken be factored into the guidance-and different interpretations of thecontext when finalizing the level of GEF GEF guidelines. In addition to the time elapsedsupport; (iii) more flexibility is provided in the for processing the projects, a lack of easilyuse of agreed resources within the project accessible information regarding the progresscontext; and (iv) countries and the GEF be more in the development of project proposals,focused and realistic when setting project including the country-level endorsement of theobjectives and expectations, given the available project document, considerably limited thefunding and time horizon. ability of the partners to identify and adequately

address the bottlenecks.

EFFICIENCY OF THE PROJECT156. In order to improve the efficiency of the

DESIGN CYCLE enabling activity projects, it is essential tosignificantly reduce the length of the project

154. Based on the statistics provided by UNDP design phase. The major milestones of theand UNEP, the review finds that the total project design process should be made moreelapsed time from the first receipt of the project transparent, mainly through a better sharing ofproposal at the Implementing Agency-GEF unit information on the progress within the designto the date of project start is still too long, despite cycle, so that the main partners involved canthe implementation ofexpeditedprocedures: 188 follow the process closely and intervene toworking days in 1998. While recognizing that break unnecessary deadlocks if needed. Fora participatory approach and stakeholder example, a "project status sheet" could be

71 In general, budget revisions usually involved a small percentage of the overall project funding.

72 that the project coordinators were also apprehensive that negotiations for budget revisions would only delay projectimplementation.

38


established, and distributed to all the relevant 159. In addition, the preparatory work duringstaffwithin the GEF Secretariat, Implementing this step consists in nominating or recruiting aAgencies and the countries, highlighting the project coordinator, selecting an appropriatedifferent steps of the processing cycle team, building the relevant institutionalcombined with regular updates on project arrangement for the project, identifyingstatus, as well as a project timeline and the consultants as well as stakeholdernames and contact information for the representatives, organizing workshops, etc.individuals responsible for each particular step. This was quite difficult to carry out andThis would allow all the parties concemed to demanded, in any case, several months to beclearly identify the bottlenecks at each step and fully achieved. Moreover, the projectdefine good practice guidance allowing the coordinators often found it difficult toacceleration of the process. While this familiarize themselves with the managementadditional transparency of the project cycle rules of the Implementing Agencies and preparemight require more resources, it is a critical budgets and work plans in accordance withissue, and the review recommends that the GEF these rules in a timely manner.explore adequate ways of providing anyrequired additional resources. 160. The need to proceed quickly with

launching concrete project activities and a lack

TIM E CONSTRAINTS of local capacity forced the projects to resortextensively to consultants, usually from thenational level. In some countries, however, the

157.cTeptions, r counotres tha with few relevant specialized experts were often eitherexceptions, most countries experienced no-xsetathntialevlruaalbedifficulties in completing their enabling activity non-exstent at the nac onal level or unavanlableprojects within the timeframe defined in theproject documents. Realizing this, theImplementing Agencies have, in many cases, 161. During the implementation stage, thereextended the project duration in response to availability and reliability of data as well as

requests from the country. It seems obvious the technical complexity of the studies to bethat the expected duration was, from the undertaken. There was also no systematicbeginning, unrealistic. Several factors explain proces s also no rematsthe longer time horizon needed for the process for reviewing technical reportstheplongatime hof projects. prepared by enabling activity projects. Thoughimplementation of projects. this affected the quality of the products, little

remedial action could be undertaken given the158. For a number of reasons, the early bde n iecntansimplementation period (from signing of theproject document to first disbursement) was 162. In many cases, the time needed toone of the most difficult to implement. First, complete particular studies waspolicy and institutional processes related to underestimated, particularly for more technicalclimate change are relatively novel in most and/or crosscutting aspects, such as baselinedeveloping countries, where development and scuttio aspent as bilityconcems more immediately associated with and scenario development and vulnerabilitypoverty alleviation continue to be of greater assessment. Many countries placed anpioerity. alleviatond ctine a o r res of greatr emphasis on building national capacity, evenpriority. Second, it also requires a broad though it could result in significant projectparticipatory approach, involving various delays. Occasionally, however, and despite thestakeholders with different motivations and budget limitations, a few projects resorted togenerally little experience in information intemational consultants in order to meet theexchange and inter-departmental consultation. schedule.

39


163. The review and validation of technical that the level of funding support has beenoutputs, including the initial national sufficient for the preparation of the nationalcommunication, generally requires a broad communication, and of the basic documents.consultation process among stakeholders. However, objectives linked to the sustainabilityThere is an inherenttradeoff, however, between of capacity building and of institutionalthe benefits of broad involvement and the time arrangements, as well as to the integration ofcommitment such a consultation requires. climate change concerns into nationalBroad coordination and support, particularly development policies, were unrealistic givenon policy issues, was needed to bring the the timeframe and the funding levels.national communication together in ameaningful and consistent manner. Moreover, 166. Considering the major weaknessesthe political nature of the validation and encountered in the enabling activity projects,approval of the national communication the COP placed an emphasis on additionalnecessitated a much longer delay, with fundingsupportneededbynon-AnnexIPartiessignificant implications for the overall project in order to maintain and enhance relevantduration. In that respect, the enabling activity national capacities for the preparation of theexpectations in terms of project duration were initial and second national communications (2/unrealistic, since they completely ignored the CP4). As a response to this COP4 guidance,consultation and validation processes. the GEF decided to extend the operational

guidelines to allow eligible countries to further164. It is clear that such problems are not likely address priority concems with GEF assistanceto occur in the future, since the enabling activity through the provision of funding support up toprocess is now well-understood by the US$100,000 for complementary activities."countries, Implementing Agencies and GEFSecretariat. However, it is recommended that 167. Once again, the guidelines related to thisfuture enabling activity efforts include "top-up" funding are not sufficiently clear, andsystematic pre-project consultation and this might lead to major misinterpretation byawarenessraisingprocessestargetingthepolicy non-Annex I Parties, as well as by theand decision-making levels prior to proceeding Implementing Agencies. Despite the fact thatwith the project proposals. In that respect, GEF information regarding the top-up funding wasfocal points could benefit from GEF support disseminated to countries via the COP, intemet,for organizing workshops aimed at pre-project and various NCSP publications and workshops,consultation. Such workshops could be a number of countries during this review werepresented by an appropriate expert or unawareofthisnewsupportopportunity,ordidrepresentative from the Implementing not understand the conditions under which itAgencies. is supposed to operate. 7

Fu N DING CON STRAI NTS 168. Another question is related to the financialcommitment of the countries themselves incarrying out enabling activity projects. The

165. The issue of funding was already raised enabling activity projectsa Theearlier in this chapter. Globally, the review finds

73 Operational GuidelinesforExpedited Financingof Climate ChangeEnablingActivities, Partl. ExpeditedFinancingfor (Interim) Measures for Capacity Building in Priority Areas.

74 Refer to the section entitled "GEF Response to Guidance from the COP" in Chapter 11 for additional analysis.

40


preparation of national communications are contribution be itemized in the same way assupposed to be financed by the GEF for the other funding sources such as the GEF so thatfull agreed cost incurred by the non-Annex I it is considered as a serious commitment duringParties, exempting countries from any funding project implementation.commitment. However, a number of countrieshad officially included in their project ROLES OF THE PARTNERS INdocuments a provision for in-kind contributionssuch as office equipment and supplies, THE ENABLING ACTIVITYtelephone, staff time, etc., which were thereforeexcluded from GEF support. While this is PROJECT CYCLEobviously an important sign of the commitmentof these countries to contribute to the success 170. The countries, Implementing Agenciesof the enabling activity project, the and the GEF Secretariat have all playedeffectiveness of these commitments has been essential roles in the creation and evolution ofquestionable for several reasons: the climate change enabling activity portfolio.

In most cases, project preparation began with* The in-kind contributions were rarely the GEF national focal point initiating contact

described in detail, which neither with one of the Implementing Agencies. Inencouraged their realization during the some cases, however, direct contacts betweenimplementation of the project nor allowed country representatives and the regionalthe country coordinators to officially bureaus of UNDP or a UNEP representativedemand this support from their respective were established during major internationalgovernments; meetings or other similar forums.

* in some cases, the government did not 171. Regarding the interactions between thehave the resources to meet its Implementing Agencies, the review finds thatcommitments; and/or this relationship was based more on unfair or

negative competition rather than on* the interest of the government in the collaboration, particularly in the initial

project was limited. development of the enabling activity portfolio.The review came across some particularly

169. This review notes that in some cases, egregious examples of lack of consultationinsufficient contributions from governments,75 among the Implementing Agencies.76 While thewhen compared to their original commitments, GEF structure encourages competition, thehave critically affected project implementation. review notes that the guidelines were notIt is recommended that when the country applied consistently among the Implementingcommits itself on a voluntary basis to a Agencies. Furthermore, the competition thatcontribution in funding or in-kind, that this did occur was based mainly on the level of

75 Including, but not limited to, inappropriate offices for the project, lack of a specific phone line for internet use, lack ofoffice supplies or furniture such as computers and photocopiers, the non-affectation of permanent staff for the project, etc.

76 For instance, despite the implementation of the regional project in Caribbean countries (CPACC) by the World Bankthrough the OAS, UNDP has recently obtained GEF approval for 11 individual enabling activity national projects for theCaribbean. In this case, the consultations between UNDP and the World Bank were very limited. Moreover, the projectswere developed using a "cookie-cutter" approach, and did not benefit from the experience gained by the CPACC project.

41


funding and on the flexibility of the application 175. While led by the GEF Secretariat, theof the activity matrix and cost norms rather than process of responding to COP guidance alsoon technical matters. involved the three Implementing Agencies and

the UNFCCC Secretariat. However, as stated172. Initially, for example, the GEF Secretariat earlier in the report, the Implementing Agenciesand UNDP expressed concern about the ability and the UNFCCC Secretariat felt that theirof UNEP to manage a full-fledged enabling perspectives were not sufficiently taken intoactivity program. These concerns were based account by the GEF Secretariat when finalizingon the absence of UNEP country offices and the guidelines.limited human resources available to overseethese projects. During this review, UNEP 176. Overall, the GEF response to COPdisputed these concerns and maintained that it guidance is considered pragmatic and timely,does have the capacity to monitor these types given that (i) the general wording of the COPof projects, given its long standing involvement decisions tended to leave room for divergentin climate change activities and its network of interpretations; and (ii) there was pressure tonational focal points, in addition to making provide financial resources to countries to startbetter use of telecommunication, field visits and preparing enabling activities. However, theregional offices. review finds that the interpretation and

operationalization of the COP guidance, in173. The issue of unfair competition between which the GEF Secretariat had a strong role,the Implementing Agencies may arise again, could have been more flexible, particularly inas soon as decisions are made concerning the the application of the cost benchmarks and thedirection of future support for enabling activity matrix.activities. Therefore, the review recommendsthat the roles and collaborative practices of the 177. The GEF Secretariat was also fullyImplementing Agencies in climate change involved in the development of the enablingenabling activity projects be better defined in activity portfolio. Once the request for anthe future. The GEF Secretariat can contribute enabling activity project was received, theto strengthening the collaborative spirit and Implementing Agencies were responsible forhelping ensure consistent application of the providing technical assistance for theguidelines across the agencies. Moreover, the development of project proposals, followingGEF can contribute to stimulating synergies the GEF Operational Guidelines, and tobetween the projects by maintaining a transmit the project proposal to the GEFtransparent and accessible information system, Secretariat. The GEF Secretariat was thenand keeping track of all enabling activity responsible for verifying that the project metprojects from the beginning of the design the enabling activity criteria and objectives and,process. if so, approving the project with the signature

of the CEO. Generally, the intervention of the

G E F SECRETARIAT GEF Secretariat at this stage was short, meetingCOP requirements to expedite the projectapproval process, though some rigidity in

174. The GEE Secretariat has two major roles applying the cost benchmarks and the activityin the enabling activity process. First, it has a matrix was noted. It should be acknowledgedleading role in responding to COP guidance that the quick reaction of the GEF Secretariatthrough the developmentofguidelines. Second, was facilitated by efforts made by theit intervenes in reviewing the project proposals Implementing Agencies to faithfully adhere toand recommending them for CEO approval, the requirements of the GEF Secretariat.

42


Informal consultations were also initiated by the the UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinator. DespiteImplementing Agencies with the GEF some improvement over time, the review notesSecretariat prior to formal submission of thatprocessingtimeofenablingactivityprojects,project proposals, in order to clarify specific that are to supposed to be expedited, in UNDPissues and to address any potential difficulties. is still too long. While a substantial reduction in

time has been achieved in upstream project178. On the other hand, the review noted that processing, little or no progress has been madethe GEF Secretariat, following its institutional in reducing project processing time in UNDPmandate, kept some distance from project following approval by the GEF CEO.implementation, and did not pay close attentionto follow-up actions. A closer association with 181. Early on in the development of the enablingthe enabling activity process could help the activity project portfolio (1996-1997), theGEF Secretariat respond quickly to needs increasing number of project proposals andevolving in countries, such as broader capacity demands on the UNDP New York staff made itdevelopment and investments in climate difficult for the agency to provide the level ofchange. direct technical assistance that was needed by

the countries.

UNDP182. Overall, the needs of the recipient

179. As of May 2000, UNDP had implemented countries for technical and managerial support179. enasli May 2000,sUNDP had im men were higher than originally anticipated in the

national projects (77 expedited projects and 14 early phase of the program. According to thenationalxprjecits (77jexpedited and 14xofwhich aImplementing Agencies, the GEF guidelines did

regional/global projects. The average enabling not give room for more substantial support toreina/loa prjet. Th vrg nbig the countries and this prevented them from

activity project budget in UNDP amounts to aoatie lee ofUS$244,000 for expedited and US$647,000 for allocating the level of human resources thatUS$244,000nfor-expedited arojects.Sinde U 0r 1would have better met the country needs. GivenNDPhason- ydevelopedexpedited projects.ince6, these resource constraints, UNDP viewed its

UNDP has only developed expedited projects, roeaminycsstgofaaeetthe timing and scope of which were thought to role as mainly consisting of managementbe more appropriate for the preparation of the oversight, with any possible technicalinitial national communications. With few contribution provided on an ad-hoc basis.exceptions, it seems that the recipient countries 183. To overcome these resource constraints,were seldom informed that it was still possible UNDP tured to intemational consultants forto obtain funding for enabling activity project the preparation of project briefs and, in somebeyond US$350,000 limit imposed by expedited cases, for the formulation of project propos-

procedures. als. In other cases, UNDP staff undertook coun-

try visits for the same purpose and provided180. To begin the project preparation process, ehia aktpigdrn mlmnacountries usually transmitted a formal request ticnnicaIt is worth notdurithat because the en-for an enabling activity project to the UNDP bi.n activoty initivwa tat nelas exerene,

countr offic, whih woul forwad the abling activity inihative was a novel experience,country office, which would forward the itncstaea amgprodThseuldrequest to the relevant UNDP regional bureauin New York, where it would be followed up by in varying quality in the design and content of

77 During project implementation. UNDP believed that the technical assistance role should be left to experts hired by theprojects. In this case the UNDP contribution consisted of conducting a search for suitable candidates, preparing TORs andsupervising the consultant's work to ensure smooth project implementation.

43


projects, due to different interpretations made global environment issues and provide techni-of the GEF guidelines and/or unequal respon- cal support to the countries by recruiting envi-siveness to the countries' needs and priorities. ronmental specialists and creating the position

of Sustainable DevelopmentAdviser.8 0 In sum-184. The human resource constraints of UNDP mary, this review notes that UNDP countryNew York became more apparent during project offices have a much large role to play duringimplementation. 7" This was especially true project implementation and therefore recom-when the projects began launching more mends that UNDP keep exploring ways andtechnical studies. Participation by UNDP means to provide country offices with greaterregional coordinators in technical seminars technical expertise.organized by the national projects occurredonly occasionally. Moreover, UNDP's regional 186. It is important to note that the launchingcoordinators were not systematically able to of the National Communications Supportassist in the Tripartite Reviews (TPR), despite Programme (NCSP) in 1998 has allowedthe fact that the TPRs provide an important UNDP to provide more effective technicalopportunity to discuss problems encountered assistance to the countries, and to contributeby the projects and to define appropriate to capacity building through strengthening ofremedial actions (though technical issues are information exchanges and the interactionsrarely addressed in such meetings). Hence, as between projects. In addition, this projectsoon as the projects were under allowed UNDP to have better knowledge oftheimplementation, UNDP turned to a more achievements and progress of its enablingmanagerial role, with technical assistance activity projects. More detailed informationgenerally provided by consultants recruited about this program will be provided in theunder individual projects.7 9 Some technical Technical Support section of this chapter.backstopping, on an ad-hoc basis, however, wasprovided by UNDP's regional bureaus. 187. In order to enhance its ability to support

enabling activity projects and to provide185. While the UNDP country offices also had continuous backstopping technical assistancea limited technical contribution at the outset, to its projects, UNDP decided to hire regionalthey were critical in ensuring general manage- consultants. In practice, this was adopted onlyment oversight, including administrative sup- forWestAfrica. Whiletheexperienceismixed,port,servingasaliaisonwithUNDPNewYork, with some countries in the region stilland facilitating the development and implemen- complaining of inadequate technical support,tation of the projects. Later, the UNDP coun- this review recommends that UNDP widen thetry offices strengthened their ability to address practice of hiring competent regional experts,

78 To a large extent, the NCSP has made a critical contribution towards filling this gap. Prior to the establishment of theNCSP, many countries had been unable to find appropriate support to address specific technical issues. Some of the mostfrequently mentioned difficulties were identification of appropriate approaches and experts to address vulnerability/adaptationassessments, and identification and use of existing GHG abatement models, in particular for the forestry and agriculturesectors.

79 It should be noted that the funding resources of the national enabling activity projects did not allow for a significantcontribution from international experts.

80 IThe review noted that where strong and very qualified support was provided by the UNDP country offices, theenabling activity projects were generally very successful.

44


or support regional centers of excellence to frequent exchange of information betweenassist countries in addressing the technical UNDP Manila (Philippines) and the Asianissues associated with the implementation of Development Bank,8 4 which is the Executingenabling activity projects. Agency of the project, through monthly

meetings and exchange of status reports,188. All but four projects in the UNDP forwarded by UNDP Manila to UNDP Newportfolio were executed by national agencies, York for comments.creating room for strong country ownership ofproject results. Four of the projects were 190. UNDP also played a critical role in theexecuted by the United Nations Office for design and implementation of the PICCAPProject Services (UNOPS). The review team project, through evaluation, review andobserved that the appointment of UNOPS as provision of linkages to its other regional andan executing agency has been problematic in global initiatives. In addition, the oversightmost cases, 8 ' due to the rigidity of provided by UNDP has also helped to ensureadministrative and disbursement procedures transparent and accountable projectapplied. This generally resulted in delays management. Unfortunately, a number ofduring project implementation and de- changes in UNDP accounting procedures overmotivation of UNDP country offices as well as the project cycle and a series of staff changesthe country representatives. It should be noted, at UNDP Apia (Samoa) may have affected thehowever, that UNOPS was generally contracted smoothness of the project implementation.in crisis countries or where UNDP did not havea country office. 191. While UNDP played an appropriate role

in implementing regional/global projects, the189. For global/regional projects, withjust one review is concerned about the country-exception,82 UNDP operated through different ownership of these types of projects. UNDPexecuting agencies.83 This approach allowed needs to explore new executing arrangementsUNDP to be discharged of the daily to improve country ownership in regional ormanagement of these projects. Despite this multi-country projects.approach, UNDP New York played asubstantial role as an IA. In fact, it provided 192. This review finds that implementationdirect technical, as well as managerial, inputs supervision at UNDP has room forto the projects. For instance, the ALGAS improvement. Refer to the section Assessmentproject was closely monitored and of Reporting and Management Proceduresbackstopped, and the Regional Coordinator included in the present chapter for details onattended all meetings. In addition, there were this issue.

81 Delays in disbursements were also encountered by regional projects executed by UNOPS.

82 The exception is in the case of the Maghreb project, where one of the participating countries, Morocco, executed theproject.

83 For instance, the Sub-Saharan Africa project (UNOPS), ALGAS (Asian Development Bank), PICCAP (UNOPS),CC:TRAIN I and ll (UNITAR), etc.

84 ADB headquarters are located in Manila.

45


UNEP practical modalities of the projectimplementation, since: (i) They have directaccess to the task manager at UNEP when

193. As of May 2000, UNEP had Implemented acest .. ts aae a NPwe193~~'. Aso.a 00 JE a mlmne needed, and (ni) they generally receive a quick25 climate change enabling activity proJeCts, of nedd n i)te eeal eev ucwhich22are national enabling activity expedited and effective response from UNEP on anyprojects andreenationalienalglatvt pedted issue that is raised. However, the review foundprojects andethree fnari rionacl/lal pjes little evidence to support the latter statement atThenav fing ofa climat chaNE least in the countries that were a part of the

enablng ativit natonal rojet forUNEP review. Furthermore, the review notes that staffamounts to US$274,000. Most of the projects resourcesaoed the UNeP for the(19 of 25) were launched in 1997-1998. As resources allocated by the UNEP for thewith UNDP, in most cases UNEP did not inform actidevelopment and implementatson of enabling

countries very clearly of the option of obtaining cties exoectato nd ns.GEF support through non-expedited procedures. countnes expectahons and needs.

197. UNEP has made a substantial effort in194. Countries interested in collaborating with mitiigamntrn n aataknUNEP must first send an official letter of systemnfor i enabling activit procts,request to UNEP headquarters in Nairobi. sse o t nbigatvt rjcsrNEques thenprocUNeP witheadqaroeteors Natirob confirming that it wants to assume its technicalU NEp then proceeds with project formulation,inconsultationwiththeGEFandUNFCCfocal assistance role in addition to the usualpoint in the country. In general, these managerial role. Moreover, it was noted that in

' ~~~some cases, UNEP has been able to provideconsultations were done by telephone, fax or te ncal comEnts and sugesto poniteemail. In some cases, the UNEP task manager docu ments pd d by gtesprojs whewould undertake a country visit. The review .cunts requeed ti atanc.notes that, while shortened from 1996 to 1997,the initial stages of project processing at UNEP 198. Despite this tracking system, appropriate

are still too long. In addition, with the exception and timely actions to correct the course ofof the national GEF and UNFCCC focal points,only a limited number of stakeholders were projects, particularly those with institutional

,in the project forulation stage as a problems at the national level, are not alwaysinvolved of this expeditedprocess.taken. In general, UNEP decided not to inter-

fere in resolving what it considered to be inter-

195. In most cases, the formulation of project nal institutional issues of the countriesproposals wa made byusingprojeconcerned. For instance, among the five

proposals was made by using proj ect UNEP-managed projects visited under this re-documents from other countries, changing only viEwthesufed from delays used by in-the substantive elements outlining the specialcircumstances and needs of the countries. Once country institutional difficulties affecting

the project proposal was agreed upon by both implementation. Moreover, while financial re-ports are generally adequate, required informa-

parties,iit worasptrovan edi to te EF tion on project progress is not always providedSecretariat for approval. According to UNEP, an utlzdi. tmlanrcountries have generally been satisfied with themodalities for formulating project documents. 199. The review finds that implementation

supervision needs to be significantly196. The modalities of UNEP intervention arebased on direct contact with the national strengthened in UNEP. Refer to the section

e g a s ad oy Assessment of Reporting and Managementexecutin agnis an.ntersosblt Procedures included in the present chapter for

of the project coordinators for administrativeand technical management. This has allowed details on this issue.the elimination of intermediate steps. Accordingto UNEP, the countries are satisfied with the

46


THE WORLD BANK by the other members of the GEF family,including the UNFCCC Secretariat, to limit its

200. The World Bank's role in climate change involvement in the climate change enabling200.n at Wo rlBank' oeen climatec.hAn activity program to allow for a balancedenabling activity program has been limited. As dvlpeto h E otoi mn hof May 2000, its portfolio comprised three development of the GEF portfolio among theprojects: two national projects and one regional Implementing Agencies.project." Though small in number, the World 203. The second factor relates to the perceptionBank portfolio amounted to US$8.6 million, of the Bank staff about the climate changeabout 12% of the total grant funding approved enabling activity projects themselves. These

by GEF for climate change enabling activity projects were considered to be limited in scope,projects. covering specifically the preparation of GHG

201. Bank staff interviewed for this review, inventories and associated capacity building,

including those involved with the program training and outreach activities. Engagingwhen it was launched, have provided useful governments on a narrowly focused issue, someinsights about the factors that could have staff felt, would detract from the Bank'spossibly influenced the Bank's decision to limit ongoing dialogue on energy policy reform andits involvement in the climate change enabling sector restructuring. As a result, Bank staff were

activity program. It should be recalled that the hesitant about bemg actively involved in theBank also had limited participation in the climate change enabling activity program.biodiversity enabling activity projects, 204. The third factor is cost effectiveness.

accounting for only 11% of the total funds World Bank staff felt that they would not haveallocated by the GEF to this effort."6 been able to comply with the Bank's internal

202. The first factor for this relatively weak policies and procedures within the budgetsinvolvement wasthefallocation ofGEFlrelated allocated for the climate change enablingtasks among the Implementing Agencies. activity projects, particularly in view of their

Though not formally articulated, it was focus on capacity building, training andassumed that this would be based on the outreach activities. Such activities, by theirverycomparative advantage of each agency. As nature, are resource intensive.capacity building, training and outreach were 205. In retrospect, perceptions about the scopean integral part of the climate change enabling and cost-effectiveness of climate changeactivity projects, there was a prima facie case enabling activity projects, may well have beenfor UNDP and UNEP to take lead on these, ablince oje B ay well outreace

exetin countries where the Bank had an a consequence of the Bank curtailing outreachexcept in cories The Bank hadear, activities for staff once it had been advised,active energy portfolio. The Bank, however, albeit informally, to limit its involvement in thealso appears to have been informally advised a m.

program.

85 The two national projects were St. Vincent and the Grenadines (approved under expedited procedures) and China(approved under non-expedited procedures), and the regional project was CPACC.

86 In terms of the total number of projects (t7), however, World Bank participation in the biodiversity enabling activityprojects was significant.

47


IMPLEMENTATION OF OTHER review, the review team also examined the mid-term and/or final evaluations for most of the

CLIMATE CHANGE WORK other regional/global projects. Overall, theseprojects have achieved satisfactory results, in

Effectiveness of regional/global particular in relation to the four main focusGEF enabling activity projects areas identified above. Though they startedand interactions with national almost from scratch, these projects established,enabling activity projects in a cost-effective way, a solid base of

knowledge in the various fields of climate

206. In addition to the national enabling change, encouraged an exchange ofinformation and experiences among countries,

activity projects were initiated by the GEFn and mobilized active networks and expertise

These projects were meant to address activities from developing countries while increasing theaimed at enhancing country capacities in role played by developing countryachieving convention objectives in groups of representatives at the regional and international

countries where a regional or global approach level.was viewed as more efficient and cost-effectivethan a strictly national effort. The projects were 209. In some cases, the regional/global projectsintended to complement national enabling significantly involved and strengthenedactivity projects, with a primary focus on: regional centers of excellence in developing(i) building capacities relevant to climate countries, particularly in Africa. For instance,change and, in particular, to the preparation of the sub-Saharan Africa project hired thenational communications; (ii) enhancing international NGO ENDA (Senegal) to provideinformation exchange; (iii) establishing and technical assistance to the four countriesmaintaining networks; and (iv) building public involved in the project. CC:TRAIN I workedawareness. with two NGOs, ENDA and the Southern

Center (Zimbabwe), in the preparation of the

207. In addition, several regional or global GEF CC:TRAIN training modules. Later,projects also included technical studies which CC:TRAIN II also benefited from strongwere of direct relevance to the national participation of experts from developingcommunication, such as GHG inventories countries as trainers, including three regional

(UNEP Country Case Studies on GHG partners from the developing countries.88

Inventories, sub-Saharan Africa, PICCAP, etc.),vulnerability and impact assessment (UNEP 210. At the technical level, the regional andCountry Case Studies on Climate Change global projects have also made importantImpacts andAdaptationAssessments, CPACC, contributions to the development ofPICCAP, etc.), and GHG abatement (e.g. methodologies (e.g. UNEP Country CaseALGAS). Studies on GHG Inventories, UNEP Country

Case Studies on Climate Change Impacts and

208. In addition to the PICCAP and CPACC Adaptation Assessments), as well as to thecase studies prepared during the course of this preparation of technical reports directly related

to the national communication (ALGAS).

87 Refer to the complete list of projects in Annex 3.

88 Enda-TM, Fundacion Futuro Latinoamericano (FFPLA) and SPREP.

48


211. The regional/global projects have also laid that the management modalities of the regional/the foundation for the national enabling activity global projects would not allow them to reactprojects and facilitated their design and easily to changing needs and circumstances.implementation. For instance, the review finds Specifically, a shift in resource allocationthat the preparation of project proposals was towards individual countries would have beenmuch smoother in countries having previous difficult at best.experience with a regional/global GEF project.In those cases, the UNDP country offices and 214. All these factors affected the ownershipnational GEF focal points, as well as the of the regional/global projects by theprimary stakeholders, were generally quite participating countries. For example, althoughfamiliar with the enabling activity process. In the quality of the studies undertaken by theaddition, a reliable core ofnational experts had regional/global projects was generally ratedalready been established. very satisfactory, the countries often did not

endorse the results, particularly in cases where212. Despite these undeniable contributions, the studies were undertaken away from officialthe regional/global projects also had some govemment institutions by academic experts.major weaknesses, which limited the country-drivenness of these projects. In general, the 215. It is worth noting that countries generallyglobal projects did not involve the recipient benefited greatly from their participation incountries in the decision making process during regional/global projects in terms of capacityproject design and implementation, and the building, exchange of information andmanagement approach of the regional projects experience, public awareness, improvements inlacked broad participation and information their negotiating capacities in internationalsharing, particularly in those projects meetings, and their ability to access fundingimplemented by extemal agencies. mechanisms. Nevertheless, the countries still

felt that they were penalized by their213. The countries also felt that the regional/ participation in regional/global projects. In fact,global projects put too much emphasis on when applying the activity matrix for nationalmeeting intemational commitments or regional enabling activity projects, they experienced aconcems, at the expense of national priorities dramatic drop in the budget allocation for theirand of concrete national actions. In some cases national enabling activity project as soon as itthe regional/global projects relied heavily on was made clear that they had previouslyinternational consultants, with a significant participated in a regional/global project. Whileportion of the project funding allocated to this may seem logical and equitable from oneinternational companies or individuals. When point of view, the countries often felt that, innational experts were utilized, there was often the end, they had few tangible benefits to showlimited consultation with the countries in the from having participated in the regional/globalselection of these consultants. This generated project, given the weaknesses mentioned abovesome frustration in the participating countries, and the funding implications. This situation haswhich felt that after having achieved a sufficient led to countries having a certain aversionlevel of knowledge and created a core of against regional/global projects, despite theircompetent experts in climate change issues, positive results and their irreplaceable role inmuch more emphasis could be laid on enhancing country capacities, developingindividual country needs and on the use of the opportunities for information sharing, andnational expertise.8 9 In addition, it was obvious boosting public awareness.

89 Contractual arrangements were usually defined before project implementation, making it difficult to introduce anychange that aimed at responding to evolving circumstances.

49


216. In practice, there is an inherent risk of launching of different studies, the countries alsoharmful competition between national enabling had a need for peer review of the technicalactivity projects and regional/global projects. reports prior to validating them.In order to strengthen the synergies and thecomplementarity between these two types of 219. Technical support needs could beprojects, the review finds it necessary to better achieved through five different mechanisms:differentiate the roles and the objectives of eachof them. For example, the regional/global . The use of consultants (national and/orprojects could focus on information exchange international);and network support, capacity building andtraining, development of methodologies, etc. * Exchange of information and knowledge;The national projects, in turn, could focus onthe preparation ofnational documents relevant . Published or electronic referencesto the UNFCCC. (manuals, guidelines, other relevant

materials, software, models, etc.);Interactions with enablingactivity projects supported by a Participation in training workshops; andother external sources

* Utilization of NCSP services.217. In general, the perception of the countriesregarding their participation in other enabling 220. Consultants. In general, an importantactivity projects (e.g. USCSP, GTZ, et al), is share of the climate change enabling activitysimilar to their perception of the GEF regional/ project budgets were allocated for the use ofglobal projects. While the technical consultants. From the beginning, countries feltcontribution of these projects was generally that enabling activities offered a uniquesatisfactory, factors like centralized managing opportunity to build national expertise onmodalities, an emphasis on global objectives climate change issues. Therefore, they madeover national interests, and a reliance on extensive use of national consultants in theexternal expertise did not result in strong enabling activity process.ownership of the final results by theparticipating countries. Moreover, the countries 221. In cases where national capacities toquestioned the results of these efforts even more develop climate change related studies were tooafter realizing that they were being "penalized" limited, countries sometimes expressed theirwhen they proceeded with their national need for international expertise. However, theenabling activity project proposals to the GEF. budget limitations of the national enabling

activity projects often prevented countries from

TECHNICAL SUPPORT hiring international experts or allowed them toresort to this expertise to only a small extent.

218. Non-Annex I parties have had an 222. In those cases where expertise andimportant need for assistance and technical consulting capacity in the field of climatesupport related to climate change." In addition change was already established,9 ' countriesto the technical assistance required during the cag a led salse, onre

resorted to experts from academia or affiliated

90 Reasons for this include the complexity of the subject, uncertainties associated with scientific and technical knowledge,methodological difficulties, etc.

91 For instance, in countries that participated in previous climate change projects.

50


structures (universities, research centers), the activity projects with the opportunity to focusNGOs, or even from government ministries. on enhancing exchanges of information andThe participation of these experts is, of course, experience, as well as broadening technicalan asset for the projects, since in addition to training to different groups of participants,their relatively inexpensive costs, members of including representatives from ministries,academia and NGOs represent the main source NGOs, academia, etc.92

of expertise in developing countries, while therepresentatives of ministries can often facilitate 225. With respect to international experts, andthe development of enabling activity studies. with few exceptions, the limited resources of

the expedited projects did not allow countries223. Nevertheless, the use of these national to resort significantly to internationalexperts also caused some difficulties for the consultants. In most cases, only global/regionalprojects for several reasons. First, the projects (e.g. NCSP-Riso, Country Caseparticipation of national consultants was Studies on Vulnerability-CICERO, sub-difficult to secure, since they often had other Saharan Africa-ENDA, CC :TRAIN-ENDA/on-going professional activities. Second, the Southern Centre, ALGAS-AED, etc.) and someparticipation of representatives from ministries non-expedited projects were able to include aas consultants, has, in some cases, caused substantial international technical assistanceconflicts of interest and confusion between component.their contribution as consultants, on one hand,and their role as representatives of their 226. Where involved, international expertsinstitutions, on the other. Finally, the relevant usually participated in the initiation or trainingexpertise in these countries was usually limited workshops. The contribution of internationalto a select group of individuals, with little consultants was important in providingtransfer of knowledge or experience to the technical backstopping support,9 3 as well asactual institutions in charge of climate change sharing and transferring experience andissues. These difficulties are expected to be knowledge to the national project staff.reduced in the future, given the increasing Globally, recipient countries expressed a highmarket potential for the "climate change level of satisfaction regarding the contributionbusiness" in developing countries, which of international experts. A few countriesshould result in greater development of private- indicated that they would liked to have hadbased consultancies. additional resources to hire international

experts in a number of selective areas such as224. In order to maintain existing capacities abatement, cost assessments, and vulnerabilityand to enlarge the groups of experts working and adaptation, or for peer-reviewing of theon climate change issues, the review final technical documents.recommends that additional resources be madeavailable for enhancing the capacity building 227. In light of this finding, the reviewcomponent of enabling activity projects. This recommends that the national enabling activitycould be done-by providing the enabling projects should have access to additional

92 For instance, through thematic workshops where country representatives would have to present the results of thetechnical studies, the obstacles encountered and the remedial actions adopted.

93 E.g.. peer-reviewing the technical documents produced by the projects, advising for the programs and the content oftraining workshops, identifying consultants for some specific tasks, etc.

51


resources allowing countries to resort to Nevertheless, some resources were much moreintemational expertise when appropriate. In difficult to obtain (vulnerability assessments,addition, this budget line should be managed climate modeling scenarios, GHG abatementflexibly in such a way that the countries can assessments, GHG emission models andmake budget reallocations to other activities, if projections, etc.). Here also, the countriesthe need for intemational experts does not occur needed advice regarding the most appropriateduring project development. Particular attention resources to obtain and some indication of howshould be paid to resorting to regional experts to obtain them.and to supporting, for that purpose, regionalcenters of excellence. 230. For project initiation workshops, or for

training on different climate change related228. The possibility of exchanging informnation issues, many countries used the CC:TRAINand experiences via the internet or during workshop package. Reactions to the materialworkshops, for instance, was also perceived by varied: some countries reported the package tothe countries as one of the most valuable means be useful, while others felt the material wasfor accessing technical support that the out of date, did not fit into the various countryenabling activity project could have offered. circumstances, and provided only generalHowever, because of budget and time knowledge.9 4 Much more precise and evolvingconstraints, expedited climate change enabling technical training tools were needed by theactivity projects did not include these kind of countries to adequately enhance their capacitiesactivities. In fact, only the regional and global to undertake the different technical studiesprojects provided opportunities for exchanging required under their enabling activity projects.information and experiences. In those cases,the positive effects for the countries were 231. Many countries reported frustration at theundeniable. The review mission considers it is lack of materials and software for carrying outessential that the national enabling activity technical studies, in particular those related toprojects contribute to enhancing the exchange projections and modeling. In some cases, theof information and networking activities, with cost of relevant software is prohibitive (e.g.a clear description of these activities in the MARKAL), 9 5 and the enabling activityproject document and an adequate budget projects did not provide sufficient resources forallocation. acquiring this software and the training

necessary to utilize it. In other cases, countries229. On a positive note, countries generally had could not even obtain sufficient indications ofeasy access to pDublished resources that were the existence of specific software, 9 6 oravailable around the world on the different information on how to acquire necessaryaspects of climate change to be addressed in software and the training to use it. In addition,the initial national communication (manuals, when materials were available, they were notguidelines, other relevant materials). always translated into national languages. All

94 Evidently, more focused training seminars are still necessary with the CC: TRAIN package. For example, the trainingin future emissions modeling is not sufficient for countries to launch mitigation studies.

95 MARKAL is an economy-energy-environment optimization model frequently used in the development of mitigationexercises.

96 This was a particular problem for countries undertaking mitigation assessments in the forestry and agriculture sectors.

52


these constraints have limited the quality and 235. Finally, the NCSP came out as one of thethe rigor of some of the studies undertaken by major initiatives to assist non-Annex I partiesthe projects. in meeting their reporting commitments

(national communication) to the UNFCCC in232. In light of these challenges, the review a timely and comprehensive manner. UNDPrecommends that the GEF and the took the lead in developing the proposal for thisImplementing Agencies explore the various project. The NCSP is jointly implemented bypossibilities and mechanisms through which UNDP and UNEP, with a technical contributioncountries could better access essential software, from the UNEP Collaborating Centre on Energyas well to the corresponding documentation and and Environment (UCCEE-Riso-Denmark).necessary training to use it. These three organizations formed the Project

Implementation Group, with the responsibility233. Countries participating in climate change of coordinating operation and technicalenabling activity projects generally appreciated decisions of this project. In addition, a Projectthe technical support provided to the projects Steering Committee, consisting of two co-chairsthrough the use of workshops and seminars. (UNFCCC Secretariat and the GEFThis support was often in the form of training Secretariat), as well as UNDP, UNEP, andworkshops organized in the countries, or UCCEE, was put in charge of projectinvolved the participation of country monitoring and evaluation. The donors (therepresentatives in various intemational training governments of Denmark, Finland, Norway andworkshops or thematic technical seminars.?7 In the European Commission) and the World Bankterms of international workshoDs, however, were invited to join the Steering Committee.the countries felt that the national climatechange enabling activities do not offer 236. The NCSP was launched aftersufficient opportunities and resources to benefit consultations between the GEF Secretariat,from them. In countries where some flexibility UNDP, UNEP and the UNFCCC Secretariat.on budget allocations was allowed, The aim of these consultations was to meet theparticipation in several relevant workshops additional technical assistance needs of thecontributed considerably to capacity and countries and to identify the most appropriateawareness building, as well as to better remedial actions to the obstacles addressed byinvolvement in international networks, and non-Annex I parties during the implementationparticipation in the development of common of the enabling activity climate change projects,methodologies and approaches. such as:

234. In order to strengthen the capacity * Weak awareness among policy makers ofbuilding and information exchange component the reporting obligations to the UNFCCC;of the projects, it is recommended that thenational enabling activity projects provide * Limited national expertise and inadequateadequate resources allowing the participation information on existing regional andof country representatives in international intemational expertise; andseminars and workshops, with a particularemphasis on regional meetings. * Lack of information on training

opportunities.

97 Particularly, those focusing on the presentation of results of various studies and national and international experiences.

53


237. The project began in January 1999 and needs expressed by the countries, the NCSPshould conclude by December 2000. The NCSP also organized a few training sessions.received US$3.2 million of funding, of whichUS$1.8 million was provided by GEF 240. Overall, during the past years, the(including a PDF-B allocation), US$0.8 million participating countries widely recognized thewas provided by the European Commission, positive results of the NCSP as having at leastand US$0.4 million from Denmark and partly offset the gaps of national enablingNorway. The activities of the project were activity projects in terms of technicaldefined on the basis of the findings of a survey assistance. While having achieved satisfactoryundertaken during a workshop involving results, it is unfortunate that the NCSP arrivedAfrican and Latin American representatives. somewhat late in the enabling activity process,9"The project included three main components: with most projects having been well underway,

and some of the initial hurdles for which the(a) A help guide; assistance of the NCSP could have been the

most relevant already over to a certain extent.(b) Technical assistance; and For instance, the "Help Guide" was supposed

to be useful primarily during the initiation(c) Regional exchange and thematic workshops of the climate change enabling

workshops. activity projects. Nonetheless, the help guidehas been disseminated to UNDP project

238. Items (a) and (c) were to be managed by coordinators. The Caribbean region, inUNDP, with the collaboration and assistance particular, has reported the guide to beof UNEP. The regional workshops for Africa, beneficial. The guide is also part of a "starterfor instance, were to be organized by UNEP. package" of resources that is now sent to anyInitially, item (b) was supposed to be managed enabling activity once it is in the pipeline.9 9 Itby UNEP, with the relevant tasks to be sub- is also accessible through the NCSP website.contracted to the UCCEE. However, the TORsfor technical assistance (TA) in the agreed 241. The NCSP has also improved theworkplan state that UNDP manages the TA and monitoring system of GEF enabling activitythat the UCCEE responds to the requests from projects by establishing a database comprisingthe UNDP support unit. UNEP also had some an updated version of the status of theinformation dissemination activities and the preparation of the national communication andresponsibility of providing UNDP with an other relevant documents. The inputs to thisupdated status of its enabling activity portfolio. database are provided through a data collection

system based on bi-annual surveys targeting all239. The thematic regional workshops planned non-Annex I Parties that are preparing theirby the NCSP were meant to offer countries the national communications under their nationalopportunity to exchange their respective enabling activity climate change projects. Theexperiences and to present the results of the data collection is also based on workshopdifferent studies undertaken by the national consultations and regular telephone calls.enabling activity projects. In response to the

98 Program execution only started in 1999 while the national enabling activity projects started in 1995.

99 The help guide also contains information routinely requested by many project coordinators, such as draft Terms ofReferences for consultants.

54


242. It is important to recall that each of the * Participation of other stakeholders suchtwo Implementing Agencies involved in the as members of academia, NGOs, privateNCSP, with its different strengths and assets, sector and other groups.has an important role to play in the achievementof the project's objectives. In that respect, the 245. The pressure to prepare proposals rapidlyreview found that the collaboration between the and the generally weak tradition of broadUNDP and IJNEP was not perfect, and that institutional participation in many developingthere is considerable room for improving the countries often limited participation by nationalquality of the support provided to enabling stakeholders. This lack of consultation at theactivity projects through closer coordination of beginning of the process led not only tothe activities of the project between the two insufficient consideration of country concems,agencies. The Project Steering Committee but also to an inadequate evaluation of themight play a leading role in establishing the resources necessary for the different activitiesappropriate collaborative spirits and enhancing necessary to prepare the nationalthe interactions between the two agencies. communication. While it is undeniable that a

broad participatory approach could slow the243. It should also be noted that the NCSP is project preparation phase, it is equally true thatclose to completion while the country needs for participation of different stakeholders duringtechnical assistance and support, information preparation minimizes the risk of institutionalexchange, networking, etc., are still increasing resistance or non-cooperation duringand evolving. Moreover, the NCSP has implementation.accumulated very valuable information andexperience related to the crucial issues 246. In contrast, during project implement-associated with the enabling activity projects, ation, the review finds that the level ofand with the preparation of the national stakeholder participation and cooperation wascommunication. All this "capital" will be lost much higher than during the project formulationunless the project continues. While it is the role stage.of the independent evaluation of the NCSP toprovide a comprehensive assessment of the 247. The first priority of the enabling activityNCSP's performance, this review would projects was to establish appropriatesupport its continuation, given its critical institutional arrangements for projectcontribution to the enabling activity program as implementation. In countries that already hada whole. a National Climate Change Committee

(NCCC), this did not represent a major

COUNTRY LEVEL problem, since most stakeholders were alreadyknown and identified and could be counted on

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES to oversee the implementation of the enablingactivity project. In countries where national

O STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION level institutions such as anNCCC did not exist,however, the establishment of project steering

244. In assessing stakeholder participation at committees presented some problems.the national level, the review placed emphasison the following issues: 248. Some countries reported that major

obstacles for the enabling activity projects were* Institutional arrangements; related to establishing effective co-ordination

among the different ministries involved and* Participation of representatives from raising awareness among policymakers. In

various govemment agencies; and general, those countries that included senior-level policymakers from a range of ministries

55


on their NCCC tended to report fewer projects on the specific institutionalinstitutional problems than those countries in arrangements made by the countries. Projectswhich the NCCC was comprised of scientific could manage such risks by including in theor technical personnel only. However, the project documents alternative institutionalNCCC is not a panacea. Several projects were arrangements, in consultation with thebased on an optimistic assumption that the Implementing Agencies, if needed. Theseexistence of the NCCC would facilitate the project documents should include terms ofestablishment ofproject committees. While this reference of all the permanent and non-worked for some countries,"'° in general, permanent staff of the project and clearlyNCCCs were neither active, nor operational, describe the background and experienceand were not granted the necessary legal and required.institutional legitimacy to effectively play theirrole. 252. The review also notes the weaknesses of

project documents regarding institutional249. There is a clear weakness in the process strengthening. Although most projects includedof appointing representatives to project institutional strengthening as an objective,committees. In most cases, representatives neither adequate resources-due to fundingappointed because of their technical limitations-nor appropriate activities forcompetencies did not have a decision-making achieving these goals were actuallyrole within their respective institutions, or were programmed." 0 ' As a result, institutionalnot required to report back to their institutions. strengthening remains one of the major gapsAs a result, the project steering committees of enabling activity projects, and in most cases,often functioned in an isolated manner, and enabling activity projects did not succeed inwere unable to internalize the possible feedback creating the appropriate conditions for thewithin their native institutions. sustainability of the institutional arrangements.

Most of the time, additional financial resources250. In some cases, the appointment of the lead to support institutional strengthening was stillagency also led to disagreements between needed even in countries where the mainnational institutions that often handicapped the objectives related to the preparation of theprojects, before and during implementation. national communication were met in a veryWeak stakeholder involvement during project satisfactory manner.preparation contributed to increasing the risksrelated to such institutional disagreements. In 253. On the part of the countries, there hasgeneral, disagreements about the leaderahip of seldom been any commitment to maintain staffprojects often led to long negotiations within the working on climate change issues. In countriescountuies, resulting in significant delays in signing where such staff have been maintained, thethe project documents. climate change enabling activity process has

been sustainable. It is important to stress that25 1. Several cases of delays or suspensions of any effort by the GEF and Implementingprojects occurred because of institutional Agencies will only be successful in theinstability or a change in project leadership. presence of strong commitments from the hostThis highlighted an excessive dependency of countries.

100 I'his was the case, for instance, in the Philippines.

101 As illustration, only a single workshop was scheduled for institutional strengthening in Mali, which is obviouslyunrealistic.

56


254. A number ofmajor recommendations can position was financed by the project. Mostbe made in order to strengthen the institutional often the appointment process was notarrangements that deal with climate change in sufficiently transparent. To safeguard thegeneral and to improve the effectiveness of interest of projects, such decisions should beenabling activity projects: based on an open recruitment for candidates

and involve the Implementing Agencies.

* Secure strong involvement (not simply anendorsement) at the highest ministerial 257. The contribution of project committees inand political level for enabling activities; the technical work was primarily done through

participation in training workshops, reviews of* Emphasize public-awareness activities in documents prepared by consultants and

enabling activity projects, directed strategic discussions related to the UNFCCC.towards decision and policy makers, and While it was a "good practice" that nationalprovide adequate resources for them; consultants were involved in these workshops,

it was noted that in most cases, the participants* Encourage the establishment of climate from govemment were usually not motivated

change departments or centers to ensure to practice the methodologies for which theythe continuity of climate change studies, had been trained and often lost the benefits ofas well as follow-up actions; and that training overtime. It is, therefore, essential,

that in order to have the capacity to review and

• Encourage the establishment or the endorse the outputs and to be able to launchenhancement of NCCCs by providing concrete follow-up actions, governmentthem with official recognition and representatives ensure a minimum level ofentrusting them with broad climate active participation and monitoring of thesechange-related responsibilities, including studies.international negotiations and decision-making on investment opportunities. 258. After the institutional arrangements were

established, more technical activities were

255. The process of appointing a project undertaken by the projects during the secondcoordinator often delayed proj ect stage of implementation. These included: (i) theimplementation. This was often due to organization of training workshops; (ii) thedisagreements between and within institutions evaluation of studies carried out as part ofregarding the most appropriate candidate. In previous projects to identify the complementarysome cases, fortunately, the extra time taken activities to be carried out by the enablingwas due to the fact that the authorities wished activity project; and (iii) the execution ofto select the best possible candidate. Despite studies. The review found that these activitiesthe resulting delays, these precautions often were generally properly sequenced, andpaid off, since the personality of the project represent a substantial effort made by thecoordinator was often a critical factor for countries to build on the results of the existingproject success.'02 initiatives.

256. This indecisiveness regarding 259. Theexperiencewithparticipationbycivilappointment of the project coordinator was society varied considerably. For instance, themore acute in cases where the coordinator's involvement of experts from universities and

102 This was particularly the case in Lebanon. However, two other important factors also led to such notable success: thedynamism of the UNDP country office representatives and the high motivation and competence of the national consultants.

57


academic institutions was, in most cases, is due to their successive participation in theessential for project progress. In return, these COP and other forums, as well as theirexperts were able to strengthen and broaden numerous interactions with international NGOstheir skills and receive new collaborating and agencies focussing on climate change. It isopportunities through participation in obvious that the enabling activity climateinternational events and connection to existing change projects would have certainly benefitednetworks. In the future, it is important that from greater involvement of NGOs on suchenabling activity projects put greater emphasis issues.on involvement by these types of civil societyexperts. 263. With few exceptions, the participation of

community-based groups was very limited.260. In the regional/global enabling activity There, early and active involvement in theprojects, NGOs often played a critical role in climate change process, in particular throughthe steering committees, as well as in enabling activity projects, would be an asset.participating in the various activities of the In the Philippines, for instance, thematicprojects. Regarding the national enabling workshops targeted to the provinces andactivity projects, NGO involvement was mostly dedicated to discussions on climate changeeffective, however the review noted also a issues and impacts were very much appreciated.number of instances of weak or partialparticipation of the NGOs. In the latter cases 264. Participation of the private sector, with thethis weak involvement of NGOs was due to exception of consulting firms, was weak andweak consideration to the NGOs in the project most often nonexistent. Even when somedocuments, or to a rather restrictive perception projects mentioned the participation of theof governmental institutions regarding private sector in their projects, it was essentiallyparticipation of NGOs in the enabling activity to note that this sector represented difficultiesproject. for providing information during the execution

of some studies. While it should be recognized261. To date, enabling activity projects have that the private sector in developing countriesfocused primarily on the international often operates under strong economicobligations of countries rather than on concrete constraints and limited human resources andactions. Nevertheless, NGOs could provide time, enabling activity projects should betterpositive contributions for a number of engage this sector. For instance, in someimportant issues, such as vulnerability and countries, such as Bolivia and Zambia, aadaptation measures. In countries that rely growing awareness and interest of industry inheavily on woodfuel, for example, the climate change issues was noted, and thiscontribution ofNGOs in developing abatement resulted in a direct and positive dialoguemeasures, while at the same time targeting between the government and private sectorsocial and economic welfare, is critical, representatives.considering their experience and fieldinvolvement in woodfuel use and resource 265. Participation by the private sector ismanagement. particularly important for the development of

concrete actions such as abatement or262. Finally, the participation of NGOs could adaptation projects. All sectors (industry,also be particularly important for strategic agriculture, forestry, etc.) that could benefitissues related to the preparation of the national from the establishment of new financialcommunication. Several NGOs in developing mechanisms for developing abatement optionscountries have considerable experience and should be involved.understanding of climate change issues. This

58


O INTEGRATIONOFCLIMATE 269. Generally, the APR contains two sections:CHANGE CONCERNS AND Part I, a numerical rating on a set of projectRESULTS INTO PLANNING attributes, and Part II, Textual Assessment.ACTIVITIES Nevertheless, this review finds that as they are

presently formulated, the APR and TPR reports266. In most cases, due to a limited emphasis cannot be considered relevant tools for technicaland support for awareness raising activities and oversight and supervision of the projects. Ininformation exchange among and within the fact, the information provided in the APR is notgovernmental agencies, enabling activity substantive enough. Moreover, the APR is notprojects did not adequately meet the original provided on a regular basis to staff and regionalexpectations regarding integration of climate coordinators at UNDP-GEF; its use is alsochange concerns into national development--change concerns into national development uneven across the regional bureaus. This posespolicies. In the future, projects should pay more a crucial problem, as most UNDP staff inattention to this crucial issue, through a clear country offices are not well versed indescription of activities that are meant to environmental issues, and problems are notsupport this objective and provision of adequate brought to the attention of UNDP-GEF untilresources. they become critical.

ASSESSMENT OF REPORTING 270. This review recommends that APRs be

A N D MANAG E M E NT made available on a regular basis to the regionalAND MANAGEMENT coordinators at UNDP-GEF to provide them

PROCEDU RES with an oversight and pulse for implementationprogress of the projects.

267. Since UNDP and UNEP have the majorshares of the portfolio, the assessment of United Natons Environmentreporting and management procedures is Programmes (UNEP)restricted to these two Implementing Agencies.

271. Since UNEP does not have any country

United Nations Development offices, implementation supervision isProgramme (UNDP) centralized at the UNEP headquarters in

Nairobi with the support of its regional offices.268. In teaoUThe major supervision mechanism for UNEP268. In the case of UNDP, the supervision of

the implementation of enabling activity projects is continuous interaction with the nationalis delegated to the UNDP country offices. As a project coordinators through telephone, e-mail,result, the major monitoring mechanism for fax and occasional field visits. In addition,UNDP is the Annual Programme/Proj ect quarterly progress reports are submitted by theReport (APR), elaborated by the project project coordinator. However, this review findscoordinator and submitted to the UNDP office that quarterly progress reports are notin the country in preparation for the annual substantive and usually consist of a list ofTripartite Review-a high policy-level activities carried out during the precedingmeeting"03 to assess progress based on theAPR quarter. Clear identification of problems in

project implementation is not carried out in theand make management recommendations if

necessary. quarterly reports, though there is a section inthe report titled "summary of problemsencountered in project delivery."

103 Involving the project executing agency, the government counterpart, and the UNDP representative.

59


272. While the project manager is often aware of the implementation progress and results ofof problems in project implementation, given enabling activities. These are not covered un-his span of control (22 projects), in addition to der the annual GEF-wide Project Implementa-his other responsibilities, the manager is not tion Review (PIR). The most consistent andable to respond to problems adequately as they accessible information regarding the progressdevelop during implementation. Furthermore, of the enabling activities has been largely duethere are no systematic supervision visits. As a to the National Communications Support Pro-result, the review finds that critical gram (NCSP). The review recognizes, however,implementation problems have developed in that the NCSP data (a) are unofficial,several UNEP implemented projects. (b) collected for the program only, (c) origi-

nates directly from the project managers, and273. This review recommends that UNEP d) will not continue to be collected beyond thestrengthen the use of the quarterly report for limited lifetime of the program.supervision purposes and develop a regularsystem of visits to countries where project 275. This review recommends that the GEFimplementation is not progressing satisfactorily Secretariat and the Implementing Agenciesin order to take corrective action. establish an annual stock-taking review of

enabling activities, and obtain an institution-Overall Management wide understanding of the performance ofthese

projects.274. Currently there is no systematic processin place to obtain a GEF-wide understanding

60

VI. PROJECT RESULTS

TECHNICAL PRODUCTS benefits as well. However, the impression isthat they have not been disseminated widely

276. The cmenough, either within the countries or at276.ecth cimgenerate inchaged thenab lng tiv regional or international levels. An appropriateprojects: in Gene includedto the folnaloin mechanism, with adequate resource allocation,products: (i) GHG inventory; (ii) vulnerabilty could be established by the GEF in order toand adaptation assessments; communabatemnt enhance interactions between projects and

promote the dissemination of these technicalproducts. This will help improve exchange of

277. The review observes that the enabling information and experiences, an importantactivity projects produced an impressive Convention objective.quantity of documents that directly related tothe communication commitments under the 279. Technical work was not withoutConvention. Moreover, a large number of other difficulties in some cases. Among the various

documents, such as ones on methodology, factors identified as affecting the quality of themanuals or studies about more specific aspects, documents are:"'were also produced. As of May 2000, 25countries that benefited from GEF-supportedenabling activities have transmitted their (a) Uncertainties associated with the qualityenationgalcmmunicationsh transmitted the hC of the basic data, or difficulties in

nationa communcation to theUNFCCCobtaining them. It is worth noting thatSecretariat, and a large number of countries are obting them. Itjis wot notingothatprogressing towards the completion of their enabling activity projects did not providecommunications for possible transmission by resources for primary data collection;COP6.104

(b) Methodologies not yet finalized or not

278. The review notes that, for the most part, relevant to some national circumstances;the quality of the documents produced underthe enabling activity projects was satisfactory. (c) The contribution of training wasThis demonstrates a significant enhancement insufficient or faded out. This might beof skills in the fields of inventories, mitigation, due to the poor quality of tools used forand vulnerability and adaptation, while at the training, the nomination of inappropriatesame time providing substantial inputs to the persons for training, or a lack ofnational communication. In some cases, the commitment tomaintainingstaffstabilityquality of the documents was impressive, and in recipient countries and hostprovided not only national, but international governments.

104 In addition, as stated earlier, Kazakhstan also submitted its initial communication without implementing any GEF-supported enabling activity project.

105 The NCSP provided a very valuable synthesis and analysis of most of the points that are addressed in these sections.Inputs to these analyses were extracted from the frequent surveys that are undertaken by the NCSP, in particular during theregional workshops that are organized by this project. In addition, the review benefited from the information collectedthrough the country visits and country studies, as well as the surveys that were distributed, to which 62 countries responded.

61


(d) Lack of capacity (due to factors a, b and communications. In that respect, a wellc above) in some countries to prepare established institutional framework, withhigher quality products; or insufficient appropriate regulatory tools and incentives, aremotivation, with work being looked upon among the most critical factors for sustainingas obligatory, with little emphasis on the process that had been launched so far bynational benefits; climate change enabling activity projects.

(e) Absence of internal and external peer 282. Reducing uncertainties, in particularreview of documents produced; and through improvement in the quality of data,

provision of appropriate models for emission(f) Various problems and obstacles, often projections, along with training in their

institutional, encountered during the application, were also reported by the countriesprogress of the projects. as essential for further improvement in

abatement analyses. Other key difficulties are280. Most countries believe that reducing the related to construction of appropriate baselineuncertainty of national inventories is a critical scenarios and development of abatement costissue for future studies and the second assessments-there is a demand here for goodcommunication, and stress the need to improve cost-assessment models.activity data and emission factors. Towards thisobjective, many countries have expressed OTHER ACHIEVEMENTSinterest in participating in regional projectsaimed at improving emission factors and 283. The development of projects for GHG

activity data, and establishing an effective abatement options is an obvious follow-up ofprocess for sharing experiences with other the abatement analysis exercise. However,

regions. countries have few indications from the GEF

regarding the follow-up actions that can be takenafter completing the national communication

enhancement of data reliability through more "exercise," and are unsure of the extent tosystematic data collection efforts. Resource and existing ancial m ha will betime constraints, as well as weak institutional able to provide financial assistance for themotivation, were the most critical barriers in prio prite defintioe in . thi init iaundertaking these efforts during the communications.implementation of enabling activity projects.'0In addition, the countries generally required 284. In addition, because the GEF Guidelinesmethodologies for managing and updating data, do not allow for developing project proposals,including software, and guidance on how to the enabling activity projects did not explicitlyestablish national systems. Most countries see address concrete investment activities despitethe creation of a national database as essential aNDdrs crete " inv facvitie despite

.. . . ~~~~~~UNDP's arguments'0 In favor of developingto maintaining capacity and ensuring the abatement and adaptation project proposals ascontinuity of the preparation of the national

106 The climate change enabling activities did not make a provision for such activities.

107 According to UNDP, this was one of the major points of disagreement during the formulation of the guidelines. TheUNDP position was that to be meaningful, enabling activities should be allowed to proceed from sector-wide projections ofabatement potential to the initial stages of project formulation. The GEF Secretariat disagreed, arguing that the enablingactivity projects should not extend beyond studies directly related to the national communication.

62

Project Results

a part of the enabling activity projects. The (RCMs), but many others believe there isGEF has not made yet significant steps towards insufficient national data and/or expertise toclarifying this issue, though many countries develop them. It is important to reduceexpressed greater expectations about this uncertainties related to vulnerabilityquestion to the SBI.105 This is not to deny that assessments, and the impacts of climate change,there have been some good examples of in order to improve the quality of remedialinvestment actions emerging from enabling strategies.activities-ALGAS project outputs have beenwell received by donor agencies as well as the 287. Other common issues include unreliableImplementing Agencies and the private sector; or unavailable data, lack of long-term capacitythe PICCAP and the enabling activity projects building in appropriate institutions, andin Lebanon, Philippines, and Thailand are other insufficient infrastructure such as monitoringgood examples. In this context, it is stations for systematic observation and earlyrecommended that the GEF and its warning systems. Provision of resources forImplementing Agencies establish a closer developing climate modeling for improvingdialogue process with the countries in order to data and involving experts from developingidentify their expectations and prepare the countries are among the most importantappropriate framework for responding to them. priorities expressed by countries.

285. For many countries, funding and time 288. It is likely that the establishment of aconstraints have limited the scope ofthe national permanent framework for improving andvulnerability and adaptation studies"< and updating the quality of data in the various areasconstrained them from conducting additional of climate change, for the purpose of meetingstudies that were identified as of critical the UNFCCC communication requirements,importance." Integrated assessments, socio- would be one of the most critical issues thateconomic studies, identification of adaptation will have to be addressed by non-Annex Ioptions (phase I and II) and costing implications parties in the future. The question is whetherare frequently reported as priority areas for this should be addressed through the enablingfuture work. activity projects or through a parallel process.

286. This issue was compounded by the fact 289. Capacity building was obviously one ofthethat most climate change scenario development, core objectives of the enabling activity process.at national levels, is undertaken using Global While the countries expressed higherClimate Models that provide a relatively low expectations for capacity building than whatlevel of spatial resolution for national impact the enabling activity projects could offer, therestudies. Some countries support the was undeniable evidence in the countries thatdevelopment of Regional Climate Models the enabling activity projects have made

108 Refer to document FCCC/SBI/1999/8, pp. 14, statement (c ).

109 For instance, emphasis was generally laid on sea level rise, while important needs were expressed in relation withimpacts assessments for forestry, agriculture, water resources, food security, etc. In addition, Phase I-Adaptation assessmentswere rarely carried out, while Phase Il-Adaptation was not addressed at all.

63


considerable progress in strengthening the activity projects-once the projects close,capacities of countries to deal with climate countries are not sure how to keep the teamschange issues. There is also evidence that in place for the preparation of the subsequentenabling activity projects have achieved national communications. These concerns haveindirect benefits. For instance, they have already been noted by the Parties to theenhanced the participation of the non-Annex I Convention, and decisions 2/CP.4 and 1 2/CP.4parties in international fora, particularly the brought a response requiring the GEF to supportCOP, and seems to have strengthened their an ad-hoc "bridging" mechanism. As a responsepresence and contribution in the decision to this request, the GEF Council approvedmaking process. additional funding to further supporting climate

change enabling activity projects, and issued290. The enabling activity projects have also Operational Guidelines for Expeditedcontributed considerably towards enhancing Procedures-Part II for enabling activitythe scientific and technical knowledge in projects.recipient countries, and to developing newmethodologies."' There is evidence that 294. These guidelines were meant to responduniversities and academic institutions have to the capacity building needs of the countriessignificantly benefited from enabling activity beyond preparing initial nationalprojects, through participation in training and communication. Countries eligible for GEFtechnical studies. In some cases, universities assistance may select from the five followinghave even included specific courses on climate activities according to their needs andchange, and involved students in their research priorities:on climate change.

0 Identification/submission of technology291. Cross-sectoral analysis has also helped needs, including the necessary capacityestablish a new collaborative spirit among building to assess, acquire, design,stakeholders involved in the process. This implement and evaluate projects;should help improve interactions andconsultations between national institutions, * Capacity building for participation ineven beyond the simple climate change systematic observation networks;process.

Improvement of emission factors;292. Moreover, in some cases, work related toclimate change activities was used as a * Maintenanceandenhancementofnationalfoundation for confirming or re-aligning capacities to prepare nationaldevelopment policies. The development of communications; andenergy conservation strategies, the promotionof renewable energy, and the adoption of better * Developing/strengthening/improvingforestry management practices figured in the national activities for public awarenesslist of the development priorities. and education, and access to infornation.

293. Despite these results, many countries 295. It is clear that these are the mainhave expressed concerns about the sustainability weaknesses encountered by the climate changeof the process that was launched by the enabling enabling activity projects. While the financing

11I GHG inventories, costing assessments, vulnerability assessments, etc.

64

Project Results

granted through top-up funding will certainly not maintained or enhanced. In most cases,contribute to keeping the climate change process the sites have been suspended at the end of the"alive," it represents only an interim solution project. It is the opinion of the review thatuntil a more long term mechanism is defined. websites represent a cost-effective and efficientIn addition, a longer term mechanism should tool for meeting the convention requirements.also incorporate actions for improving national The review recommends that enabling activityinstitutional arrangements and mechanisms to projects give better support to such initiativesensure integration of climate change issues into in the future, by granting the necessarythe regular planning process in recipient resources for (i) the development of websites;countries. (ii) the enhancement of sites by including all

climate change-related information (inventories,296. Several countries had the option to vulnerability, adaptation, attenuation, research,develop websites, although only a few projects observation, project portfolio, etc.); and (iii) themade provisions for this purpose. Most of the regular updating of information contained insites designed include little information, and are these sites.

65

VIl. GOOD PRACTICES

297. The review team identified a number of climate change process as a whole, and is likelygood practices that were adopted by the to promote the replicability and disseminationcountries or the Implementing Agencies in order of this experience in other countries.to improve the results and efficiency of theenabling activity projects and their 300. In Armenia, the enabling activity projecteffectiveness. Good practices were also highlighted the impact of climate change onadopted to overcome some obstacles by giving forestry resources, and has also developedmore flexibility to the implementation of enabling simulation models showing these impacts.activity projects. These good practices aredescribed in the following paragraphs, for ACHIEVING OUTREACH ANDillustrative purposes, on the basis of the specificexperiences of the countries visited or studied INFORMATION EXCHANGEduring the review. Despite varying andchanging country circumstances, it is useful for BENEFITS THROUGH THE USEcountries to take stock of these experiences, OF INTERNETand to try to adapt these good practices to their

specific needs in the future. 301. The Brazil climate change enabling

activity project was also one of the firstACHIEVING ADDITIONAL countries to have developed a climate changeBENEFITS THAT SERVE website in 1995. This innovative and interesting

idea has contributed significantly to theREGIONAL AND development of the Brazilian National

Communication and to raising publicINTERNATIONAL CONCERNS awareness. This constituted an important tool

for the implementation of the Brazilian298. The enabling activity project in Brazil is commitments under the UNFCCC. Theachieving impressive results that go beyond importance of this idea has been recognizedproviding benefits only for the country, since by the UNFCCC Secretariat, which has createdBrazil has about one-third of all tropical forests. the CC:INFOWEB program for the diffusionIn fact, in addition to strengthening national of the Brazilian model to other developingcapacity by developing more specific countries.deforestation data, the enabling activity projectis achieving a significant reduction of the 302. Reflecting the whole preparation processuncertainty in calculating the emissions from of the national communication, the site makestropical deforestation. It is likely that this available all the information generated by themethodology will provide significant institutions and experts involved in thecontributions to the work of the IPCC and preparation of inventories and documents forbenefit many other countries. the national communication, including the

name and contact information of all the experts299. Brazil has also established a solid base involved and responsible for the elaboration offor monitoring land-use change and forestry each document. This enhances the quality andthrough satellite imagery. The review found this reliability of the work, ensuring transparencyGEF initiative very relevant as it serves the and allowing a greater participation of experts

67


not involved directly in the process but who wish INVOLVING THE MEDIA INto make comments and suggestions.

THE PUBLIC-AWARENESS303. The internet has also made possible a EFFORTforum for interaction and experience sharingamong experts from different sectors, facilitatingthe collective development of the work, 307. Enabling activity projects have rarelyshortening distances, and decreasing costs and utilized the media for informationthe need for meetings and trips. Thus the dissemination and public awareness. Theclimate change internet site has strengthened media can be a useful actor in translatingthe capacity of the coordination unit and helped technical and scientific statements that areto decentralize the preparation of the national provided by the experts into more easilycommunication, allowing a complete accessible communication material for theinvolvement of all relevant institutions, general public. It is recommended that enablingregardless of their geographical location. activity projects place more emphasis on

involvingjournalists in the different workshops

304. As the website has been developed in three and meetings held by the projects.languages-Portuguese, Spanish and English-the Brazilian climate change site is rapidly 308. Some projects used the media for widerbecoming a reference site internationally and information dissemination, with very positiveis enhancing Brazil's participation in the global impacts. In the CPACC project, for example, aclimate change debate. public awareness strategy has been developed,

including a suite of public education and

305. Although access to the internet in Brazil awareness materials, such as briefingis still limited, network conditions are evolving documents for decision-makers, teaching kitsrapidly, resulting in an exponential increase of and video scripts. Additionally,journalists havethe number of Brazilian internet users. In the been sensitized to climate change issues, withlong run, the effect ofthe extensive use ofthe encouraging results. For example, oneinternet in Brazil for climate change matters journalist from Saint Lucia who participatedmay be very significant, in particular for general in this workshop, held in Trinidad and Tobago,awareness raising, dissemination of knowledge, has since been making frequent references toand a better integration of the climate change climate change in his newspaper columns.concerns into the daily activities of Brazilians.

309. Zambia has also tried to target the media

306. Some other countries (Armenia, sector through the organization of a workshopAzerbaijan, Honduras, Lebanon, Philippines, for awareness building among representativesetc.) had made similar attempts to establish of the print and electronic media, with a viewwebsites with varying results and benefits. The towards encouraging the media to disseminatemain issue encountered related to maintenance information on climate change issues. Theof the website after the end of the enabling PICCAP project has often complemented itsactivity project. This required more human outreach and public awareness campaigns withresources and relevant data resources to items prepared for the written media, radio andaccomplish. television

68

Good Practices

DEVELOPING INTERACTION Papua New Guinea, Tonga, and manyCaribbean countries, particularly those

BETWEEN PROJ ECTS participating in the CPACC project.

310. In some cases, the national enabling 314. In addition to the benefits to countries inactivity projects have developed relationships taking stock of experience gained by theirand synergies that allowed the countries to regional neighbors, regional interaction is alsobenefit from the exchange of information and a cost-effective way for strengtheningexperience. These also contributed to enhancing capacities and improving the quality of thethe technical capacities of the countries and to studies prepared by the countries. Therefore,significantly reducing the level of uncertainty the review recommends that this initiative bein the results. developed in a more systematic way by

providing for additional resources in the

311. In Azerbaijan, for instance, a regional enabling activity projects, regardless ofworkshop on greenhouse gas emissions was whether they have a national or regional/globalconducted in cooperation with the National approach.Communications Support Program. Expertsfrom several countries in the Central Asia PARTICIPATION INRegion participated in the workshop. TheAzerbaijan team found the experience INTERNATIONAL TRAININGextremely valuable for cross-checking and WORKSHOPS ANDvalidating their approach to the preparation ofthe inventory. Similar experiences have been INTERNATIONAL EVENTSalso organized by the NCSP and proved verybeneficial to the countries. 315. As mentioned earlier, the enabling activity

projects did not provide resources for travel and312. In West Africa, UNDP also initiated a participation in intemational workshops andsimilar regional workshop in Mali. The events. In Lesotho, for instance, the enablingobjective of this workshop was to allow activity project paid particular attention toparticipants from Benin and Chad, which were capacity building through participation ofjust at the beginning of the implementation of different country experts in several relevanttheir enabling activity projects at that time, to workshops and seminars outside Lesothobenefit from the experience gained by Senegal (seven in Africa and two outside Africa). Theseand Mali, which were in a more advanced stage have considerably contributed to the successof developing their climate change studies and of the project, and to increasing the ability ofpreparing their initial national communication. Lesotho to meet the convention communication

requirements.313. PICAPP is also an outstanding exampleof regional cooperation. Through cooperative 316. Although such expenditures are normallyefforts with other institutions and programs, not eligible under GEF enabling activities, theother countries (both within and outside the rationale for this practice is that these meetingsPacific islands region) have been able to provide country representatives with uniqueparticipate in, and hence benefit from, the training opportunities and serve as importantcapacity building activities of PICCAP. This venues for updating their knowledge of climatehas included participation in PICCAP's training change issues. In light of this result, the reviewworkshops and the use of PICCAP's training recommends that this practice be moreand information resources. Countries that have explicitly recognized and appropriatelybenefited directly included the Maldives, Niue, provisioned for in the future.

69


ENHANCING POLITICAL WIDER PARTICIPATION OF

SUPPORT FROM THE HIGHEST THE STAKEHOLDERS

LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT 321. Stakeholder participation is undoubtedly

an important factor for the success of enabling317. In many countries, the enabling activity activity projects. The review observed thatprojectsihave suffered considerably fromp weak countries did not systematically stress thepolitical support to the activities implemented importance of such participation, particularlyby the project. It is the opinion of the review at the policymaking level. This resulted in anthat strong political support is a crucial condition insufficient endorsement of the results andnot only for the success of the enabling activity limited integration of climate change concernsprojects but also for the development of the into the planning activities, as put into questionclimate change process as a whole in the the sustainability of the climate change policycountries. This strong support may be process as a whole,evidenced through the involvement of high leveldecision-makers and official establishment of 322. In that respect, the review observed thatclimate change committees. the benefits of enabling activity projects were

most effective in countries where emphasis was318. In Azerbaijan, for instance, a State laid on widening stakeholder participation. InCommission on Climate Change was the Philippines, for instance, significantestablished by Presidential order. This stakeholder participation has contributed to aCommittee is chaired by the First Deputy Prime satisfactory implementation of activities and aMinister and meets once every two months. To timely completion of the project. In Lesotho,implement the climate change enabling activity an inter-agency team, which was in charge ofproject,atheNationalCenterforClimate Change the implementation of the project, involvedwas established with the coordination of the highly skilled professionals from the relevantState Hydrometeorology Committee. The high- ministries, agencies, academic institutions andlevel political attention to the issue has NGOs. In Zambia, the project has alsogalvanized all the relevant government promoted the participation of representativesministries and agencies and led them to from universities, NGOs, and most relevantcontribute their best efforts to the govemmentagenciesatthenationallevel. Theimplementation of the Project. Zambian Association of Chambers of

Commerce and Industry also advised the team319. The Philippines also established an Inter- that there is a growing awareness in industryAgency Committee for Climate Change on climate change issues, and that there is a(IACCC) by Presidential order, and has need for direct dialogue with them. Thus, theinvolved high level representatives from the private sector was fully involved in themost important ministries and stakeholders in activities of the project.this IACCC.

323. In Armenia, the composition of the Project320. In Lesotho, climate change has also Steering Committee (PSC) and the role that itreceived support from the Minister of Natural played in providing guidance and supervisionResources, and this greatly contributed to the to the project has contributed to the satisfactorysuccess of the project. implementation of the project. The PSC

70

Good Practices

comprises 16 members, including the Minister FLEXIBILITY INof Nature Protection (Chairman), five First ViceMinisters (Nature Protection, Energy, REDESIGNING THE PROJECTEconomy, Agriculture and Industry) and ACTIVITIESrepresentatives of intemational donor agencies,research institutions, academics and NGOs.The PSC, by its very composition and active 326. Effectively addressing climate changeparticipation in developing the Project's issues can be like shooting at a moving targetstrategic agenda and in selection and because of the continuing evolution ofappointment of the national consultants, information, needs and priorities. It isunderscore the importance of the project to the unfortunate that many projects have sufferedcountry. from a lack of flexibility would help countries

react to these changing circumstances. One

FLEXIBILITY IN good practice would be to allow for greaterflexibility and a more pro-active approach from

REALLOCATING PROJECT the Implementing Agencies and the projectparticipants. This would contribute towards

FUNDING increasing effectiveness ofprojects in meetingevolving needs of countries.

324. While the resource allocations forenabling activity projects globally have 327. Some projects were able to adopt thisadequately covered the activities aimed at flexibility. For instance, the first Multipartiteachieving the main goal ofpreparing the national Project Review (MPR) of the PICAPP projectcommunication, flexibility in funding allocations, suggested that identification of mitigation optionsduring the implementation of the projects were be shifted from a national to a regional activity,very much appreciated by the countries. In on the grounds that such an approach wasZambia, for instance, reallocation of resources consistent with the lack of technical capacityamong budget categories, especially the at national level and that it would also be moreincreased outlays for training, education and cost effective. The Project committeeawareness has contributed to a better response supported this change, with agreement from allto country needs, and thus to improving the the Parties to endorse the regional report, withbenefits and the results of the project. an adequate reference to national level

implications. National level mitigation325. Activities that were better supported in activities are now being captured in theZambia include an awareness building National Implementation Strategies andworkshop for key stakeholders such as through other initiatives such as the Nationalgovernment planning officers and the private Strategic Studies that facilitates nationalsector to promote climate change concerns in projects under the Clean Developmentthe planning process. Another workshop was Mechanism.organized for awareness building amongrepresentatives of the media.

71


Few projects better exhibit the spirit behind the ratioon of limate change enabling ac"tivItista h unidertaken by ten Pacific Isand nations int a regional effort aimed at 1fulfilingtheir obligathion neh

ITheI Pacific Islands Climate Change Assistanc(oe Progranmme (PICCAP) is a three-year,$2.4 million GEFproject implemented in June 197 y N anexecuted by the Souh Pcficf Regional 'EnirmonmtProgramme (SPREP). Th rjc a i ao aaity building objctvs ftht led to thefolowing I

* Greenhouse gas inventr (souirces and sinks);* A evluaIon ofmitigation optonos;

* National vulnerability assessments;* A evaluation ofiadaptation optijons*National implemnentation(plans; and~*Submission of the Initi'al Nationial Commun6iato to the COP.

WhIle these 'goals and outpUts are comnmon to mayoteprjcs PICCAP is remrkabl in itsovrllevel Of achievement, particularly in light of the limiehua,nsttoaladfnnclrsucsavailable atteoteWnytreyasagINo nyhv l u n o h omlpoetojciebeen mnet, within the prescribed time frmes and reotedywti ugt u utial ytmonational assessment and reporting is now in place in h e cutres Thi atraheeetcnbmeasured in thelform of officially reognized institutiona structures,tandntoas n acninformiationi management procedures. Moreover, nertdntoa oiis n ln eae ociaechange are in anh advnced stageof ~ddevelopmentin otcutis

PICCAP employed4acouintr ~te-amapproach which involved the nationalgovernment designatingainagheny to host a team of oseftmrl reipresentatives, national experts, andIIotherstAkeIholrsinuigprivat sectoreandNGO interests, who in turn fcilitate policy and ojdeisio-n-m fakigoncimt cagissues At the nationa~llevel, PICCAP Ihas been implemented in threephases: (i) estabiheto

changet issues ad completion ofactivities specified inArtficle12of the UN4FCCC a.nd (i)plc

Despite the initial limitations, PICCAP was imhplemented predoiatyhruhhefotofninlconsltants oirnationial government employOees, witout theIus ofitentona rosultants.We

regona cnsutats er usd,they were rqietowkwthninal counterpart andtasrkolde an xets nways that enhac hua eorces in asutialmnerAohr

ChneVunrbltad Adp Atio Asesmnt whcsfrher hlingtePcfcntosscrogterm, hoegoneprie

The enhancement ofcapacity has not been limited to theprjectparticiats. Throg oprtie0fraWith other insttutionis and programs, other couties inadou fthe region havebw bet atcptin, and benefit from, the capacity building activitie fPCA.Ti a nlddpriiainiPICCAP'sI training Workshops and theb use of PiC Pstringadnfmtoneouc.

The success of PICCPcnb patillyatrbutedto teinherent rcgiinb h atcpnstacapacity building is intga tfuilngteroiainsunder*theUNFCC.IQ lorfet h plctoOf thie collective experec n idmo t ate raiain.UD,frisac,pae rtclrole in project design imlmnaio,adeAlainwheSPEfclttdwoknrltosipbetween the counre adpoientritrbuiosintemofecnaladisrtv,adfnnclsupport. other participats, icdngCTRAIN, provide vitlresawl.

1 These ten nations are the Cook Istads Republic of Fiji, Repubtic of iria Reulco asalIlnsFederated States of Micronesia, Naunru, Samnoa, Solomont Islands, TuValu, anid Rpbi Vnau

2 The existeneoahese imttosintc,wsenasnefth primaryusfiaonfrprungaeinlapproach.

72

ANNEXES

ANNEX 1TERMS OF REFERENCE

BACKGROUND as '[measures] such as planning and endogenouscapacity building, including institutional

1. Enabling activities. Enabling activities strengthening, training, research and education,-w. ichEinablng activiaties. En ingvactiiies, that will facilitate implementation, in accordance

-which include preparation of inventories, wtthCovni,ofeecversnecompilation of information, policy analysis, wmth the Conveneon, of effective responseand design of strategies and action plans-

represent a basic building block of GEF 3. The first Conference ofthe Parties (COPI)assistance to countries. They either are a

mean offulfllig esental cmmuicatons to the FCCC, requested the Global Environmentmeans of fulfilling essential communications Facility (GEF), the entity operating the financialrequirements to a Convention, provide a basic mcaimo h NCCo nitrmbssand essential level of information to enable mechanism of the UNFCCC on an interim basis,policy and strategic decisions to be made, or communications:assist planning that identifies priority activitieswithin a country. Countries thus enabled willhave the ability to formulate and direct "Priority should be given to the funding ofsectoral and economy-wide programs to agreed full costs (or agreed full incrementaladdress global environmental problems costs, as appropriate) incurred by developingthrough a cost effective approach within the country Parties in complying with theircontext of national sustainable development obligations under Article 12.12 and otherefforts.' relevant commitments under the Convention. In

the initial period, emphasis should be placed on

2. Climate Change Enabling Activities. enabling activities undertaken by developingIn the context of climate change, enabling country Parties, such as planning andactivities were defined by the Conference of endogenous capacity-building, includingthe Parties (COP) to the UN Framework institutional strengthening, training, researchConvention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and education, that will facilitate

I GEF Operational Strategy, 1996, page.9

2 Article 12.1 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) requires that each Party, in accordancewith Article 4.1, shall communicate to the Conference of the Parties, through the Convention Secretariat, the followingelements of information:

"(a) A national inventory of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all greenhouse gases not controlledby the Montreal Protocol, to the extent its capacities permit, using comparable methodologies to be promoted andagreed upon by the Conference of the Parties;

(b) A general description of steps taken or envisaged by the Party to implement the Convention; and

(c) Any other information that the Party considers relevant to the achievement of the objective of the Convention andsuitable for inclusion in its communication, including, if feasible, material relevant for calculations of global emissiontrends".

75


implementation, in accordance with the capacity, so as to prepare the initial and second

Convention, of effective response measures."3 national communications which will take intoaccount experiences, including gaps and

4. At its second meeting, the Conference of problems identified in previous national

the Parties (COP2) adopted detailed communications, and guidelines established byguidelines4 for the content of the first national the Conference of Parties." 6 COP4 alsocommunications from non-Annex-i Parties. In decided "to ensure that issues and concernsits guidance to the GEF, COP2 confirmed that identified by non-Annex I Parties in their initial

these guidelines and formnat shall form the basis communications are brought to the attention

for the funding of communications from non- of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) andAnnex I Parties. The guidance also required through it, as appropriate, its implementingthe GEF to expedite the approval and agencies whenundertaking the comprehensivedisbursement of financial resources for this review of enabling activities projects."7

purpose and consider country-specific needsand other approaches which may be used for 6. GEF Supported Enabling Activities.8

several countries with similar needs, upon Among the enabling activities, those that are

request, and take into account that the specifically related to countries' obligations to

preparation of national communications is a first national communications under Article

continuing process.5 12.1 of the UNFCCC are eligible for GEFfinancing on the basis of "agreed full costs."

5. At the Fourth Conference of Parties The GEF has prepared operational criteria,(COP4), guidance to the GEF emphasized the issued in Feb 1996 and revised in Feb 1997, toneed for funding support for preparing initial guide the preparation and scheduling of supportand subsequent national communications "by for these activities, following expedited

maintaining and enhancing relevant national procedures.9

3 Decision 1 1/CP., item b(i) in documentFCCC/CP/1995/7/Add.1, Report ofthe Conference ofthe Parties on its First

Session, held at Berlin from 28 March to 7 April, 1995, Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its First

Session.

4 Decision 1O/CP.2, Communications from Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention: guidelines, facilitation

and process for consideration, in documentFCCC/CP/1996/15/Add.1, Report ofthe Conference ofthe Parties on its Second

Session, held at Geneva from 8 to 19 July 1996, Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at is Second

Session.

5 Decision I1 /CP.2, paras 1(c) and (d), Guidance to the Global Environment Facility, in document FCCC/CP/1996/15/

Add.], Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Second Session, held at Geneva from 8 to 19 July 1996, Part Two:

Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at is Second Session.

6 Decision 2/CP.4, para l(d) Additional guidance to the operating entity of the financial mechanism, in document

FCCC/CP/1998/16/Add.l, Report of the Conference ofthe Parties on its Fourth Session, held at Buenos Aires from 2 to 14

November 1998, Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of Parties at its fourth session.

7 Decision 12/CP.4, para I (d), Initial National Communications from Parties not included inAnnex-I of the Conventionin document FCCC/CP/1998/16/Add.l, Report ofthe Conference ofthe Parties on its Fourth Session, held at Buenos Aires

from 2 to 14 November 1998, Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of Parties at its fourth session.

8 GEF Operational Strategy, 1997, page 37

9 Operational Criteria for enabling activities: Climate Change, GEF/C.7/Inf.10, February 1996 Operational Criteria for

Expedited Financing of Initial Communications from non-Annex-i Parties, February 1997.

76

STATUS OF THE CLIMATE and through the organization of a number ofthematic and regional exchange workshops.

CHANGE ENABLING

ACTIVITIES RATIONALE AND SCOPE OFTHE STUDY

7. The GEF has supported Climate ChangeEnabling Activities in a total of 128 countries

amoutin toa ttalGEFallcaton f U$72 9. The Study of GEF's Overall Perform-amounting to a total GEF allocation of US$ ance recommended a comprehensive reviewmillion througb: of enabling activities to "determine how

successful the projects have been, analyze the* Enabling activities processed through reasons for those that have failed, and consider

expedited procedures in 96 countries policy and programmatic responses to theamounting to US$24 million; problem".12 The GEF Council, endorsed this

recommendation at the October 1998* Enabling activities supported as full meeting."3 Since a sizeable number of activities

projects in 14 countries10 amounting to have been implemented (or are underway), itUS$10 million; and would be useful to understand the effectiveness

of climate change enabling activities in* 10 global/regional projects in 18 participatingcountries. Inaddition,theoutputs

countries"1 amounting to US$36 million. from this study are expected to provide useful

inputs to the Capacity Building Initiative8. In March 1998, the GEF approved a proposedunderthe StrategicPartnerships (GEF/National Communications Support Programme C. 13/9).amounting to US$2 million, implementedjointly by the UNDP and UNEP. The project is 10. The overall purpose ofthe study will be togeared towards enhancing the capacity of take stock of experience with GEF-supportedparticipating non-Annex I Parties to prepare climate change enabling activities and to extracttheir initial national communications to the lessons for future enabling activities.UNFCCC. The activities ofthe project aim to Specifically, the study is expected to examine:improve the quality, comprehensiveness, and (i) the effectiveness of the enabling activitytimeliness of the initial national communication modality; (ii) the effectiveness and efficiencyfrom non-Annex I Parties to the Convention of the process-the GEF approval process andin accordance with the guidance provided by the national execution process; (iii) influenceCoP-2 through the operation of a "Help" desk on broader capacity building and/or planningfor climate change enabling activities, in countries through the process ofpreparationprovision of additional technical assistance to of initial communications; and (iv) bestcountries preparing national communications practices from country experiences.

10 Jordan received support both under full project and under expedited procedure.

11 Note that the global/regional projects also cover some of the countries listed in categories (a) and (b)

12 Study of GEF's Overall Performance, pp.57

13 Decision on Agenda Item 8, Action Plan on Follow-up to the Overall Performance Study, Joint Summary of theChairs, GEF Council Meeting, October 14-16, 1998.

77


11. The review will cover items (a), (b), and guidance on preparation of national(c) listed in para 7. The National communication; and (iii) applicability andCommunications Support Programme will be flexibility to specific country needs.considered in the review to examine how theprogram is covering gaps identified in the GEF- (e) Evaluate the effects of expeditedsupported enabling activities. The specific procedures in terms of elapsed times foractivities to be conducted under the study are: different stages of the project preparation,

approval, and disbursement process.Response to guidance fromthe COP Portfolio overview

(a) Identify elements of COP guidance (from (f) Identify the status of various countriesamong those referenced in footnotes 3, 4, enabling activities, specifying the statusand 5) to which the GEF Operational of sub-components, and preparation/Criteria on Climate Change Enabling submission of first nationalActivities has responded. communications.

(b) Assess the responsiveness of Project design andoperationalization of elements of COP implementationguidance relevant to GEF Climate ChangeEnabling Activities in terms of: (g) Compare the activities of enabling activity(i) timeliness of response; and projects against the GEF Operational(ii) reflection of the content and spirit of Criteria for Climate Change Enablingthe guidance. Activities, and carry out a preliminary

evaluation of adequacy of the GEF cost(c) Describe the evolution of the consultation norms to facilitate the completion of each

process between the GEF Secretariat, the of the components of the enablingImplementing Agencies, and the activities towards meeting the objectiveUNFCCC Secretariat in the of preparing the first nationaloperationalization of Convention communications.'4

guidance in terms of specific milestonesof consultation. (h) Assess the roles played by the countries,

the Implementing Agencies and the GEFEffectiveness of the Secretariat in developing the portfolio ofoperational criteria enabling activities, and the impact of

enabling activities on the GEF portfolio(d) Assess the appropriateness of the GEF as a whole. Assess the GEFSEC-IA

Operational Criteria for Climate Change review/dialogue process and itsEnabling Activities in termns of: (i) ease consistency with established timelines,ofinterpretation and operationalization by quality and relevance of technicalthe lAs and participating countries; (ii) its comments; and the impacts on project

design and implementation.

14 The comparison should be done in the context of evolution of procedures and norms of enabling activities, withreference to specific time periods when enabling activity projects were reviewed and approved.

78

(i) Assess the adequacy of budgets made (p) Assess the relative merit and cost-available to the Implementing Agencies effectiveness of capacity building throughto design and implement enabling the three different approaches for enablingactivities; assess the adequacy of project activities-full country projects, regionalimplementation time and schedule. projects, projects under expedited

procedures, as referenced in para. 7.() Examine how the enabling activities

complemented existing climate change Project resultsrelated activities in country. Specificallyexamine the complementarity with (q) In countries where implementation hasenabling activities supported by other been underway for a significant amountextemal sources of financing. of time:

(k) Identifythesources,andassessthequality (i) Assess, if possible, whether theof technical assistance available to design contributions of enabling activitiesand implement the projects, with specific are progressing towards meetingreference to: (i) advice and inputs from objectives set forth in the projectImplementing Agencies; (ii) manuals, design, including preparation andguidelines or other relevant materials; and submission of initial communica-(iii) consultants, with particular attention tions.to the use of national and regionalconsultants. (ii) Assess the early results and

sustainability of capacity building(1) Assess the roles, level, and mode of activities-improvementstonational

participation of different stakeholders institutional arrangements, training,(governments, NGOs, private sector, data gathering and research,academic/research institutions, etc) in education, enhancement of humanproject design and implementation. resources, and consideration in

planning of response measures in(m) Assess the contribution (complementary accordance with the Convention, and

and supplementary) of the regional and other issues, such as capacity toglobal climate change enabling activity improve and prepare inventories-projects on country-level enabling activity included in the enabling activityprojects and/or national communications. projects.Assess possible synergies or overlapsbetween GEF-supported activities and (iii) Assess additional benefits, if any, thatbilateral programs. have resulted from enabling activities.

(n) Assess whether the National Best practicesCommunications Support Programme isproviding adequate and appropriate (r) Describe remedial actions taken by lAsadditional assistance to countries to to early problems identified with theaddress identified gaps in the enabling design and implementation of enablingactivity project design. activities.

(o) Assess the reporting and management (s) Identify the best practices and lessonsprocedures on implementation of enabling leamed in the design and implementationactivities. of enabling activities.

79


Recommendations have undertaken a common approach toenabling activities;

(t) Recommend broadly what modifications,if any, should be undertaken in the future (f) Preparation of country case studies onto respond to future guidance from the selected countries by local consultants;COPs regarding national communications.

(g) Country visits by study team members;(u) Recommend possible improvements in and

design, budgeting, appraisal and approvalprocedures, stakeholder participation and (h) Questionnaires to countries (to be carriedother relevant elements of enabling outtogetherwithongoingworkundertheactivities. National Communications Support

Programme).

METHODOLOGYSTUDY TEAM

12. The proposed methodology for the studywill cover the following broad areas: 13. The study will be carried out by a team

comprising of members from the implementing(a) Review of relevant documentation at the agencies, the GEF Secretariat, the GEF

GEF Secretariat, United Nations Monitoring and Evaluation Unit, anDevelopment Programme, United Nations international consultant, and local in-countryEnvironment Programme, the World consultants. The identified members of theBank, and the UNFCCC Secretariat; study team are as follows:

(b) Visits to the Implementing Agencies and . Mr. Samir Amous, team leader/discussions with GEF regional international consultant.coordinators and task managers ofenabling activities; . Ms. Bo Lim, Mr. Richard Hosier, and other

members of the UNDP-GEF climate(c) Consultation with relevant stakeholders change team (with Mr. Martin Krause)

such as the UNFCCC Secretariat, other UJNDPrelevant bilateral and multilateralagencies, international, regional and local * Mr. Ravi Sharma, UNEPNGOs, including academic institutions;

* Mr. Mahesh Sharma, World Bank(d) Views expressed by the Parties through

the Convention process;"5 . Mr. Avani Vaish, GEF Secretariat

(e) Preparation of regional overviews (case . Messrs. Jarle Harstad, Rameshstudies) by consultants, focusing on Ramankutty, GEF Monitoring andregional groups of countries which may Evaluation Team

15 FCCCISBI/l999/INF.3, National Communication from Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention; Provisionof Technical and Financial Support, FCCC/SBI/I 999/MISC.2, National Communication from Parties not included inAnnexI to the Convention, Preparation for Review of Enabling Activities, Views of Parties with regard to the review of the Global

Environmental Facility enabling activities.

80

* Local consultants (to be identified (b) Projects that are close to completion/depending on countries for case studies projects that are in early stages ofand field visits implementation;

14. The team will participate in all stages of (c) Large/smallprojects;the study, including developing detailed planand methodology for the study and participate (d) Large/small countries/island nations;in initial synthesis discussions on finding andconclusions following country visits. Local (e) Countries with low emissions and highconsultants will participate in the team visits vulnerability/countries with highto countries and preparation of selected country emissions and low vulnerability;case studies.

(f) Geographical balance; and15. The team leader (with inputs from theteam) will prepare an Inception Report, which (g) Implementing Agency representation.will contain an overview of the data sources,plans on how to address the various issues,outlines of questionnaires or structured OUTPUTinterview guides, a list of countries proposedfor case studies and country visits, as well as a 17. The team leader will be responsible forschedule for the execution of the study. preparing the first draft of the report, based on

country visit reports and on inputs provided by

Country selection criteria the team members.16 Based on feedbackreceived, a second draft will be prepared for

16. The team members will visit a selected management review at the GEF Secretariat andnumber of countries. The countries will be the Implementing Agencies. Followingselected to broadly represent the following management review, a third draft will befactors: prepared and forwarded to countries covered

under visits and case studies for their(a) Projects approved under expedited comments. Based on feedback, the final report

procedures/projects that were approved will be prepared for submission to the GEFunder normal GEF procedures; Council. The final report will consist of 30-50

pages plus appendices, including, inter alia, alist of all interviewees and data sources.

16 Team members will be requested to provide specific inputs.

81


PROPOSED SCHEDULE

1. Idetifiiation of independent consultant January 4, 2Q002. Finalization of Terms of Reference for review February 7, 2000

03. : Tem Meting :0 tooovrTR anjd fthozemetodoog JFeruary 7, 20004. Finalization of countries for visits and case studies February 7, 2000

Consu 0ltation with lAs,GEFSe, UNFC Secrtaiat and Del e Frr000 *6. Inception Report February 25, 20007 . CoSuntry Visits andf Counry C^aase Stuistes ; g; AC;V_a:gX:;;;;0 ftfAMaroW-pl 2000:tS;8. First Draft Report-to team for review June 15, 20009. Seco5nd Draft Reor-fr EFSEC-IA managementreviwA f tAt:f tttfJuly 15,20 000C0t 10. Third Draft Report-for country comments August 15, 200011l . Final Report S:0500t 0 000 ft0 ft000 0j00t0 ti0 $eptember 31<,20012. Desktopping and Publishing October 1, 2000

82

ANNEX 2THE REVIEW APPROACH

The review was managed by the GEF * Finalizationofthereviewschedule;Monitoring and Evaluation team at the GEFSecretariat. It involved an inter-agency * Task assignments to Team members;taskforce comprised of staff members from theUNDP, UNEP, The World Bank, and the GEF * Finalization of the questionnaires to beSecretariat, and led by Mr. Samir Amous, an addressed to country coordinators for aintemational consultant. broader review of enabling activity project;

andThe review collected information from avariety of sources, including desk review of * Identification of national/Regionalproject documents and other relevant consultants for country visits and country/documentation, consultations with the regional studies.Implementing Agencies and UNFCCCSecretariat, views expressed by the Parties FINALIZATION OF THEthrough the UNFCCC, country visits, countryand regional case studies, and questionnaire REVIEWING APPROACHsurveys. In addition, the review will benefitfrom the large information framework The information gathering started in Marchdeveloped by the National Communication 2000 with the country visits, country studies andSupport Programme. transmission of the questionnaires to the project

coordinators. Country visits were completed inTHE REVIEW AGENDA April 2000 except for Armenia, which was

completed in May 2000.

The initial phase of the review started onFebruary 2,2000, with the first visit ofthe Team THE REVIEW TEAMleader to the GEF Secretariat at WashingtonD.C. The aim of this first visit was to organize The core review team comprised of followingmeetings with all concemed Parties including 10 experts:the Team members, and to finalize theimplementing framework of the review: V Samir Amous (team leader)

/ Jarle Harstad (GEF-M&E team)* Finalization of the terms of reference of / Martin Krause (UNDP-GEF)

the review; v Bo Lim (UNDP-GEF)

/ Ramesh Ramankutty (GEF-M&E team)* Finalization of the reviewing approach; v Ademola Salau (UNDP-GEF)

/ Mahesh Sharma (The World Bank)* Finalization of the Guidelines for country V Ravi Sharma (UNEP)

visits/country studies; v/ Miguel Torralba, (UNDP-GEF)

V Avani Vaish (GEE Secretariat)* Selection of the countries to be included

in the review;

83


Country visitsArmenia Ms. Aida Iskoyan;Aietaijan Mr. lmran BehbudovBolivia Mr. Mauricio Meza CaestroBrazil Mr. Emilio La RovereCameroon Dr. J.H. ChendjouLnonb6m Dr. Riad ChedidLesotho Ms. Lucy Khalema Redeby

aliW Dr. Aroiia CoulibalyPhilippines Ms. Marisol PortalSouth Africa Mr. Khorrombi MatibeVietnam Dr. Nquyen Duc MinhZambia Mr. David MbeweCountry StudiesEgypt Mohamed EISobki, Associate Prof., Cairo UniversityHonduras Mr. Jaime J. Bustillo Pon, independent consultantIndia Prof. P.R. Shukla, Prof. Indian Institute of Mgmt.Malaysia Dr. G. Sivalingam. Prof. University of Malaya

eonaflaU StudiesCaribbean Mr. Cletus Springer, Impact Consultancy ServicesPacfic Prof.JohnHays, Waikato University

In addition, regional and national consultants . Project evaluations (mid-evaluation, Finalwere hired to assist with country visits or to evaluation, Tripartite review, etc.);undertake country/regional studies. Teammembers, implementing agencies and their . Project status reports including PIMScountry offices, as well as the UNFCCC (where relevant);Secretariat assisted in the identification ofconsultants. The list of the consultants involved . Annual Project Report (APR);in the review is as listed above.

* Quarterly operational reports;

DOCUMENTS CONSULTEDD Project status reports;

FOR THE REVIEW* Any document relevant for the review;

The review had also relied on the existing anddocumentation available at GEF-SEC as wellas at Implementing Agencies Headquarters, * UNDP and UNEP databases for EARegional Bureaus and country offices. The projects.types of documents that were reviewed hadincluded: COUNTRY VISITS AND

* Any relevant technical document related COUNTRY/REGIONAL STUDIESto the Enabling Activity projects (e.g.National Communications, GHG Eighteen enabling activity projects wereInventories, etc.); included in the review. Twelve of them were

visited by the review core team, four others* Views expressed by the Parties through national projects have been concerned by

the UNFCCC; country studies, and two regional projects werereviewed by regional consultants. In addition

* Project Briefs and project documents; a special attention was be paid to National

84

Communication Support Programme and where * Large/small countries/island nations;applicable, a broad assessment of the potentialenabling contribution/benefits ofGlobal/Regional * Countries with low emissions and highprojects was made in the countries concerned vulnerability/countries with highby the review. emissions and low vulnerability;

The team members visited a selected number . Geographical balance; andof countries. The countries were selectedaccording to the following parameters: . Implementing Agency representation.

* Projects approved under expedited The nineteen reviewed projects representprocedures/projects that were approved around 14% of the total number of GEF climateunder normal GEF procedures; change enabling activity projects. The total

budget of these projects amounts to US $15.7

* Projects that are close to completion/ million, which represents around 22% of theprojects that are in early stages of total budgetallocatedto climate change enablingimplementation; activities. In addition, the good regional balance

and IA representativeness of the sampled* Large/small projects; projects will give a correct overview of the

LIST OF COUNTRIES INVOL VED IN THE REVIEW OF THE GEFCLIMATE CHANGE ENABLING ACTIVITY PROJECTS

IA Region Procedure Budget(US Dollars)

COUNTRY VISITSMali UNDP SSA EP 94,760South Africa UNEP SSA EP 321,000Lesotho UNEP SSA EP 350,000Zambia UNEP SSA EP 256,000Cameroon UNEP SSA EP 265,000Vietnam UNEP EAP EP =212,500Armenia UNDP ECA Fl.R 350,000Azerbaijan UNDP ECA EP 324,500Brazil UNDP LAC FP 1,500,000Bolivia UNDP LAC EP 185,220LebaLnon UNDP MENA EP 292,600COUNTRY STUDIESIndia UNDP EAP FP 1,500,000Egypt UNDP MENA FP 402.000Honduras UNDP LAC EP 325,000Malaysia UNDP EAP FP 470,000REGIONAL CASE STUDIESPICAPP UNDP EAP FP 2,440,000CPACC WB LAC FP 6,300,000TOTAL 15,743,080IA: Implementing Agency EP Expedited Project FP: Full ProjectsCPACC includes Antigua & Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada. Guyana. Jamaica,St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago)PICAPP includes Pacific Islands: Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Samoa, SalomonIslands, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

85


reality of the enabling activity portfolio as a prepared for that purpose (ref. Annex 12), andwhole. transmitted to the project coordinators. The

questionnaire included 5 main modulesIn general, the country visits included two core corresponding to the items in the terms ofteam members and a national consultant. The reference for the review:national consultant was responsible for:

* Project details (project name, project* Preparing the contacts and schedule for coordinator, dates, telephone, email, etc.);

the meetings with stakeholders;* Project design-related questions;

* Collecting all relevant information anddocumentation; * Project implementation-related

questions;* Making a first analysis of the enabling

activity project on the basis of the terms * Project results; andof reference of the review;

* Overall project experience.e Accompanying and assisting the country

visit teams; and Information gathering throughthe National Communication

* Providing follow-up activities after country Support Programmevisit completion where needed.

Since its commencement, the NationalCountry studies included four countries. CmuiaonSprtPgamehsadNational consultants were commissioned to CommunicationSupportProgrammehasmadeundertake these country studies and to provide an important effort to gather and maintaina country report to the core team. Regional information regarding the enabling activitystudies included two projects. Regional projects. The review team had the opportunity

to look to the files that are maintained by NCSPconsultants were commissioned to undertake aninoprtthtnfmtonnotervewthese regional studies and to provide reports tothe core team. The regional review required Interactions between national EAthe consultant to travel to a number of coun-tries that were covered by the regional projects. projects and regional/global

projects

B ROAD ER ASS ESS ME NT During the country visits and country/Regional

studies, the team members also soughtReview survey information on the GloballRegional projects that

directly concemed the country, and tried toIn addition to the 18 projects specifically assess the interaction between the nationalconcerned by the review, a survey was enabling activity projects and these Global/conducted in order to get broader inputs from Regional projects.enabling activity projects. A questionnaire was

86

ANNEX 3LIST OF CLIMATE CHANGE ENABLING ACTIVITY PROJECTS

Enabling Activities Supported Under Expedited ProceduresNo. Countr - LA Amount Date of Date oPrOjo DM of First

(US $} CEO Start (signing of Disbursement (By._ ._____________ _ . _ _ . 2 ~ *proval prodo Quarwt for UNDP*1

1_ I Albania UNDP $278,000 30-Jul-96 4-Jun-98 (3)19962 A_oofa _ U_DP - S 194,670r 22-Jan-98 11-Feb-98 1 19983Antigua& Barbuda UNDP $161,5001 21-Jul-97 22-Dec-97 (1) 19984 Azerbai an UANDP $34S00 16-Jul-97 25-Dec-97 (1) 19985 Bahamas UNDP $185,300_ 26-Aug-97 1 0-Sep-98 (2) 1998_ Sipbados LINDP $89,417B 31-Oct-97 g : -Se-9 . 139997 Belize UNDP $185,100 8-Jan-98 9-Jun-98 (3) 19988 Benin UNDP 100,42 3 9 24-Mr-99 b (2)19989 Bhutan UNDP _ $296,000 26-Jun-96 13-Aug-96 (2) 1997

10 Bclivia UNDP $185,220 7-Juul-98 I8-(3) 199811 Burkina Faso UNDP $233,810 19-May-97 27-Jan-98 (3)199712 urndi UNOP $319A45Q 18-Se -98 19-Jan-99 (2) 99913 Cambodia UNDP $325,480 24-Mar-97 24-Aug-98 (2) 199814 Cape Verde UNop $319,300 1$-Mar-97 21-Aug-97 - (3)19915 Chad UNDP $100,425 23-Au -99 1-Feb-00 pending16 Chile UNDP 5350,008 30-Aug-96 | 11-Apt-97 (3)199717 Colombia UNDP $345,000 24-Jun-99 I 28-Aug-99 pendingIS 15 r%-0 UNOP $319,450 1-Se e-98 I 15-Feb-99 _ pe _ng

|19 Congo DR UNDP $345,000 7-Mar-97 17-Jul-97 (3) 199720 Coafia ... UNP $345 17--99 (1) 199921 Cuba UNDP $153,500 18-Aug-98 5-Mar-99 (3) 1999

Domnica 168,00 -an-9 26- 98 23 Dominican Rep. UNDP | $350,000 29-Mar-99 4-May-99 (2) 1998

24 ador UNiop $220 000 29-Mar-99 Pending (3) 99925 El Salvador UNDP $320,000 24-Mar-97 9-Sep-97 (2) 199726 Etieas. UNDP $308O 4-Sep-96 t3Feb-9 8 .3) 199627 Ethio ia UNDP | $213,210 19-May-97 31-Jul-98 (2) 199728 -. $3, 10-Sep-98 44_:r-99 (3)19.929 Gambia UNDP $137,900 24-Mar-97 17-Nov-97 (1) 199730 Georgia UNDP T $32,000 4-Sep-96 20JWan-97 (1) 199731 Ghana UNDP $94,760 16-Jul-97 15-Jan-98 (2) 19973 (Grendda LINOP $184,370 25-Aug-98 11-Dec-98 (1) 1 9833 Guatemala UNDP $326,000 24-Mar-97 13-Jan-98 1) 199834 u4nea UNDP $45,600 19-May-97 9-Feb-98 ( -2) 199935 Guinea Bissau UNDP $345,600 5-Jun-97 Pending

8 Guarana -NDYP $196,730 27-Oct-97 5-&Jun-98 (3) 199837 Honduras UNDP $325,000 24-Mar-97 7-Nov-97 (3) 199738 Indonesia UNOP $228,200 13-Nov-97 28-Jul-98 (3)199839 Iran UNDP $349,995 24-Jun-97 29-Oct-97 (1) 199840 Jarnaca UA-P $232780 9-Jan-98 28-Apr-98 (1) 199941 Jordan UNDP $87,550 15-Dec-97 16-May-98 (1) 199842 Korea DPFt UNDP $1A54,200 23-Jan-97 3-Apr-97 - (3)199743 Lao PDR UNDP $313,000 29-Jul-96 22-Oct-96 (2) 199744 Lebanon - UN1DP . 11-Jul-96 16-Dec-96 1 (3)199645 Macedonia UNDP $345,000 5-Feb-99 4-Aug-99 - (3)199946 Madagascar UNOP $350000 24-Jun-99 Pendiog47 Malawi UNDP $193,640 18-Mar-97 22-May-98 | (1) 199748 Mali $9476D 116ul-97 9-Jan-98 1 199 849 Malta UNDP $265,000 9-Nov-99 31-Dec-99 pendinaso Moldova OUNDP $32500 1-ASug97 - 22-Dec-97 - (1998 |51 Morocco UNDP I $144,220 6-Oct-99 22-Feb-00 pending52 lozarnb e UMDF . $216,000 16-Jul-97 10-Feb-9 - (2) 1997.53 Nicaragua UNDP $299,100 3-Feb-98 14-Jul-98 (2)199854 r Nfr$345,600 2

87


No. County I00IA 0Amun . a .o* Date of Project Dato f FIt(US $~~ CEO S~tarsigeing of Dsusmn B

.Apprvnl0 i preodo 0 uarter r UNIW*)55 Niqeria UNDP $259,560 18-Mar-97 23-Oct-97 (3) 199756 Panama lINOP $298,700 -Au-7 i iWL - 1-ug-9 (57 Paraguay UNDP $190,550 27-Jul-98 22-Feb-99 (3) 1999

59 Philippines UNDP $154,500 24-Jul-97 27-Nov-97 (3) 199760 Senec alP $67,100 2Au -97 - 28-Nov-97 (3) 199761 Seychelles UNDP $250,290 30-Jul-96 3-Dec-96 (2) 1997

_-f62 Sierra Lene U $309,P 00011-Sep-96 - _____________

63 Slovenia UNDP $345,000 5-Aug-97 24-Nov-97 (1) 199864 Sr a U $110000 21-Mar-970 4-No-97 (3)199765 St. Kitts & Nevis UNDP $158,620 3-Feb-98 8-Oct-98 (1) 199966 StLucia UNOP $169,9006u -97 16-Jul-98 (3 867 Sudan UNDP $290,000 3-Oct-96 4-Feb-97 (1) 199768 Suriname UNOP 0000 0-S -98 19- 98 (31199969 Swaziland UNDP $303,850 18-Mar-97 28-Nov-97 (3) 199770 TaJikistan UNDP $32,700 ending i71 Thailand UNDP $189,500 13-Nov-97 5-Jun-98 3)199872 Togo UNEP$3800 8Ju-7 0Apr-9 (2)f997~73 Tonga UNDP $325,000 27-Oct-9974 Trinidad & Toba2 18ay-98 - (1) 199975 Uganda UNDP $83,340 30-Jul-96 28-Dec-97 (1) 199776 Uzbekistan UNOP $325,00 N 2an-97H 4- 9 : (3199677 Yemen UNDP $195,700 19-May-97 13-Aug-97 (2)199878 Bahrain UN* $35 ,000 1O 9-N ov9 13-Nov70N 79 Bangladesh UNEP l $175,000 16-Mar-99 3-Aug-99 15-Mar-00| 80 Cameroonv 000 ff;t 000 WUNeP - $265,000A 16-Jul-9 1A u97 1 6 9|81 Central African Republic UNEP $350,000 26-Aug-97 20-Nov-97 15-Dec-9782 Comors UNEWP $310,000 6-Novi-9 13-Jan99 1777 Feb-9983 Cote d'lvoire UNEP $327,000 ! 26-Mar-98 4-May-98 29-Mav-98841 Diibouti - UNE P $310m 000 23-Nov-98 1f4-Mar99 7Ar985 Haiti _ UNEP $350,000 26-Jan-98 23-Apr-98 15-May-0086 Kenv a UNEP = $172,800 27Ot98 025-Mr-99 1j0 5-Jul-99 i87 Lesotho UNEP $350,000 4-Sep-96 30-Oct-96 3-Dec-9688 Mauritarnia UNEP $350,000 22-Jul-97 2F- 6-Feb-9889 Mauritius UNEP - $140,000 17-Jul-97 7-Aug-97 4-Sep-9790 MOnoigbls UNE5p; - $239,500td 5 -Ocit-9 26-c9 18-Nv-9891 Nepal UNEP $310,000 4-Mar-98 22-Jun-99 15-Apr-0092 Niue LIUNEP $29000 29-Sep-97 12Nov-97 - 26-Nov-97931 Pakistan UNEP - $274,000 2-Dec-98 7-Jan-99 2-Feb-9994 South AfricaN $2000 1 -Jun-98 I 4-Oct-98 1| 6-oct-98:j4jjj95 Tanzania UNEP - $254,000 17-Jul-97 25-Aug-97 18-Sep-9796 Turkmenistan UNEP - $350,000 17-J- 8-Aug-97 1 ep-97l 971Vietnam l UNEP l $212,500 6-Nov-98 3-Mar-99 8-Mar-9998 Zamnbia NE $256 000 24-Ar-7 2Jn97 - 4ul799 Zimbabwe UNEP $93,600 7-Feb-97 6-Mar-97 18-Mar-97

Total $25,222,282- The UNDP calendar year is broken into three quarters. The first lasts from Jan.-June and the second twoare each three months long.

88

Enabling Activity Projects Supported Under Non-Expedited ProceduresNO Country IA Amount Oite i DOte 6f oiteioFltst : te of

(US $) CEO Pro)et Dlsburment Subnmtssuon ofEndorsem S?:t - .l PIrit "wownal

iernt (signing of . - -- - . -prodoc)

1 Argentina UNDP $1,000,000 17-Jan-96 16-Feb-96 (1) 1996 25-Jul-972 Armenia _ JVOP $350,00C 16-0se-95 7 -a98 (31_ 1998 444ovto983 Botswana UNDP $350,000 14-Aug-96 5-Sep-96 (1)19974 Brazil UNOP $1,50,000 14-Jur-98 5-A&96 (1)- 19975 China World $2,000,000 PILOT

Bank PHASECosta Rica UNDP $467,200 7-Juin-96 7-A-98 ( . 199 19

7 Egypt UNDP $402,000 22-Apr-96 12-Jun-96 (1) 19978 India (INop $1,500,000 PILOT 6Mr9

PHASE9 Jordan UNDP $242,000 17-Oct-95 21-Mar-96 (1) 1996

10 Malaysia UWNDP : $470,000 1Oe-96 30-Ooi-: :(-) :9-711 Maldives UNDP $863,600 4-Oct-96 1 6-Jan-97 (1) 1996 9-Dec-9712 Mexico INOP $306,500 7-un-98 29-Ct-98 (1 1997-13 Papua N Guinea UNDP $345,600 30-Dec-96 30-Dec-96 (2)1998 15-Oct-9714 Tunisia UNOP $565,000 4-Aug-98 Se96 (1)1997 .1 15Uruguay UNDP $700,000 13-Nov-95 19-Dec-95 (3) 1995

Total $11,062,000

Re ional/Global Climate Change Enabling Activity ProjectsProject IA Amount Date of CEO

ApproV_1 Asia Least-Cost Greenhouse Gas Abatement Strategy (ALGAS) UNDP $9,500,000 PILOT PHASE2 CARICOMW Planning for Adaptation io Chmate Change W nk '$6,0O -- Fb-9?3 Climate Change Training Phase I (CCTRAIN 1) UNDP $900,000 PILOT PHASE4 Climate Change Training Phase It (fCGTRAIN2) UNDP $Zr700,O0 ;26-1Mar-5 Country Case Studies on Sources and Sinks of Greenhouse Gases UNEP $4,700,000 PILOT PHASE6 Ecnomics of Greenhouse Gas Umitation - Phase I UNEP $,o000,000 18t-an-987 Economics of Greenhouse Gas Limitation - Phase i1 UNEP $2,000,000w Biidin Capact in the Maghreb . N p. $2,50000 PtiOT PHAE9 Pacific Island Climate Change Assistance Proiect (PICCAP) UNDP $2,440,000 20-Mar-9710 Building Capacity in sub-Saharan Afica UNUP -$2000,000 -LPILOT .HA

Total $36,040,000

89


ANNEX 4DOCUMENTS AND REFERENCES CONSULTED

GEF DOCUMENTS

1. Operational Report On GEF Programs, June 30, 19992. Operational Strategy, February 19963. The World Bank and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Environment

Department Papers, March 19954. Capacity Building Requirements for Global Environmental Protection, UNEP5. The Costs of Adapting to Climate Change, GEF6. Biodiversity, International Waters and the GEF, IUCN7. Study of GEF's Overall Performance, GEF, 1997

UNFCCC DOCUMENTS

I. FCCC/SBI/1999/INF.3, National Communications from Parties not included in Annex I to theConvention: Provision of Technical and Financial Support

2. FCCC/SBI/1999/MISC.2, National Communication from Parties not included in Annex I tothe Convention, Preparation for the Review of Enabling Activities, Views of Parties withregard to the review of the Global Environment Facility

NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS

I . The Philippines Initial National Communication on Climate Change, December 19992. Republic of Nauru Response, First National Communication under UNFCCC, October 19993. Lebanon's First National Communication Under the United Nations Framework Convention

on Climate Change, Republic of Lebanon, Ministry of Environment, 19994. Arab Republic of Egypt, Initial National Communication to the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, July 19995. The Federated States of Micronesia, National Cormmunication prepared Under the United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, October 19996. Cook Islands, Initial National Communication Under the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change, October 19997. Kiribati Government, Initial National Communication under United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change, September 19998. Revision of the First National communication Argentine Republic, October 19999. Vanuatu National Communication to the Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC, July 199910. Tuvalu Initial Communication Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change, October 199911. Chile 1999, Primera Communicacion Nacional, CONAMA12. Republic of Mauritius, Initial National Communication Under the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change, April 199913. Republic of Zambia, Initial National Communication Under the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change, April 2000

90

UNEP

1. Enabling Activities for the preparation of the Initial Communication related to the UNFCCC -Draft Evaluation Report, UNEP, Mauritius, Todd Ngara, January 2000

2. Preparation of the Initial National Communication related for the implementation of theUNFCCC - Final Evaluation Report, UNEP, Zimbabwe, December 1998

3. Country Case Studies on Climate Change impacts and adaptation assessments, GF/2200-96-09, UNEP, Michael H. Glantz, May 1998

4. Country Case Studies on emissions and sinks of GHQ Project GF/4102-92-01, DeskEvaluation Report, UNEP, July 1995

5. Economics of Greenhouse Gas Limitations - Phase I: establishment of a methodologicalframework for Climate Change Mitigation Assessment, Evaluation Report, Emilio LaRovere,February 2000

UNDP1. Building capacity in Sub-saharan Africa to respond to the UNFCCC, report on the final

evaluation mission, November 19982. First Draft Report on Mid-term Evaluation of the project "Capacity Building in Maghreb

Region to respond to and take advantage of the opportunities offered by national Responses toUNFCCC, April 2000

3. Extemal Evaluation of the concurrent phase of RETA 5592, "A study of Least-Cost GHGAbatement strategy (ALGAS)," July 1999

4. Report on Mid-term Evaluation of the project "Training Programme to support theimplementation of the UNFCCC, CC:TRAIN II, March 1999

5. Terminal Report of the project "Training Programme to support the implementation of theUNFCCC, CC:TRAIN II, October 1999

REVIEW

1. 12 country-visit reports, March-June 20002. 4 country-study reports, March-June 20003. Meeting notes: GEFSEC, The World Bank, UINDP New York, UNEP, UNFCCC Secretariat,

February 20004. Meeting notes from the 3-days team - retreat, May 20005. Parties' views on the review of EA CC process (communications and compilation reports

published by the UNFCCC Secretariat)6. Data bases established by UNDP and UNEP relating to EA CC projects7. Synthesis Report on NCSP files and database, April 20008. Analysis of the survey undertaken by the review, May 2000

91


ANNEX 51996 CRITERIA AND 1997 GUIDELINES:

COST NORMS

19:9 Crt4 197GudlieActivity Typical Cost Range Activity Typical Cost Range

Inventories/Stocktaking National Circumstances- greenhouse gas inventory $ 30,000 - 80,000- vulnerability assessment $ 25,000 - 45,000

General Description of up to $ 135,000Preparation of Plan, including $ 30,000 - 40,000 Stepspublic awareness building (a) programs related to

sustainable development,research, publicawareness, etc.(b) policy options formonitoring systems andresponse strategies forimpacts.(c) policy frameworks forimplementing adaptationmeasures and responsestrategies.(d) building capacity tointegrate climate changeconcerns into planning(e) programs to addressclimate change adverseimpacts, incl. Abatement,sink enhancement.

Preparation of national $15,000 - 20,000 Compilation and Production $15,000-20,000Communication of Initial National

Communication

Total $ 200,000 - $ 350,000 Total u to $350,000

92

ANNEX 6CRITERIA FOR REVIEWING CLIMATE CHANGEENABLING ACTIVITY PROJECTS AS INCLUDEDIN OPERATIONAL CRITERIA FOR ENABLING

ACTIVITIES - 1996

1. Coverage without duplication

In assessing a country's needs, past, ongoing, planned and committed activities-bilateral activi-

ties, multilateral programs, as well as activities undertaken by other agencies-are fully taken into

account to ensure that GEF enabling activity projects fill any remaining gaps.

2. Appropriate overall sequencing of activities

Projects should be embedded in an overall strategy that leads towards sufficient capacity.

3. Good practice

Enabling activity projects should follow good practice, and observe established guidelines, using

existing tools whenever available.

4. Cost effectiveness

Projects adopt the least-cost means of providing assistance to countries.

93


ANNEX 7ANNEXES INCLUDED

IN OPERATIONAL CRITERIA FOR ENABLING

ACTIVITIES - 1996

ANNEX A The Activity Matrix, to be included in each project proposal to summarize, in aconcise way, the already existing capabilities in a country, the improvementenvisaged through the proposed project, and the gaps remaining after projectcompletion

ANNEX B Enablement Plan and Appropriate Sequencing, containing guidelines on appropriatesequencing of activities

ANNEX C Indicative List of Enabling Activity Guidelines

ANNEX D Cost and Activity Norms Used for Communication-related Enabling Activity

ANNEX E Standard Format for Proposals for Communications-related Enabling Activities

ANNEX F Enabling Activities and Related Measures-Glossary of Terms

94

ANNEX 8ANNEXES INCLUDED IN OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR

EXPEDITED FINANCING OF INITIAL COMMUNICATIONS

FROM NON-ANNEX 1 PARTIES - 1997

ANNEX A Guidelines for Non-Annex I Communications

ANNEX B Expedited GEF Procedures for Enabling Activities

ANNEX C The Activity Matrix

ANNEX D Typical Cost Ranges for Proposals for Initial CommunicationsProcessed by Expedited Procedures

ANNEX E Standard Format for Proposals for Communication-Related Enabling Activities

ANNEX F Enabling Activities and Related Measures-a Glossary of Terms

95


ANNEX 9PARAGRAPHS OF DECISION 11/CP.2 THAT ARE RELEVANT

TO ENABLING ACTIVITIES

Para (a)(ii)

Projects funded through the financial mechanisms should be country driven and in conformitywith, and supportive of, the national development priorities of each country.

Para.b (i)

"Priority should be given to the funding of agreed full costs (or agreed full incremental costs, asappropriate) incurred by developing country Parties in complying with their obligations underArticle 12.1 and other relevant commitments under the Convention. In the initial period, emphasisshould be placed on enabling activities undertaken by developing country Parties, such as planningand endogenous capacity building, including institutional strengthening, training, research andeducation, that will facilitate implementation, in accordance with the Convention, of effectiveresponse measures."

Para (b)(i)

"In this context...institutional development."

Para fb)(iii)

Emphasis should also... responses measures."

Para (b)(i)

The operating entity... which should, as far as possible, be comprehensive.

96

ANNEX 10NEEDS AND MAJOR PRIORITIES EXPRESSED BY THE

BENEFICIARY COUNTRIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THEFUTURE EA PROJECTS

The current review had the opportunity to con- * Development of more comprehensive andsult with a great number of stakeholders dur- complete Vulnerability and Adaptation as.ing the 12 country visits, the 5 country studies, sessments;and the 2 regional studies. In addition, 60 coun-tries have responded to the survey that was * Enhancing the countries' capacities tolaunched by the review, and the National Com- undertake relevant modeling exercises ofmunication Support Programme (NCSP) had vulnerability and adaptation;previously launched a similar consultation dur-ing the last two years, in particular through * Enhancing the countries' capacities tosurveys or evaluation undertaken at the regional undertake relevant forecasting and mod,workshops held by the NCSP. In particular, eling exercises for the purpose of devel]countries were asked to identify the CC-related oping various emission projections andissues that are of priority for them and the gaps scenarios;that they would hope to fill in the future. Thefollowing issues are among the most commonly * Supporting wider dissemination of thelisted:' technical studies (including intemation.

ally) through translation of documents intoImprovement of the quality of the infor- other relevant languages according to themation related mainly to the GHG inven- countries' needs;tory, to the vulnerability, to the mitigationoptions, through the implementation of * Enhancing the networking and informa-adequate updating systems within the ben- tion exchange activities;eficiary countries (e.g. development of

emission factors, etc.); * Encouraging the enhancement and/or es-emission factors, etc.); tablishment of regional centers of excel,

* Assistance for the establishment of a per- lence;manent framework for information anddata collection that allow an effective * Enhancing the national and regional ex-implementationof the UNFCCC; pertise through better participation to

implementation major intemational events;

1 Issues are simply listed without reference to any order of priority.

9?


* Meeting the international consultancy * Prepare the national capacities to dealneeds where requested by the countries; with the new financial mechanisms (e.g.

CDM); Development of project propos-* Enhancing institutional arrangements for als; and

CC (e.g. National Climate Change Com-mittee); . Enhancing the national capacities to for-

mulate project proposals and direct them* Enhancing the public, as well as decision- to the existing financial mechanisms.

making and political level awareness;

* Better integration of CC concerns into theday-by-day planning activities;

98

ANNEX 1 1QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE SURVEY UNDERTAKEN

BY THE REVIEW

Global Environment Facility1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433 USA

Tel: (202) 473-0508 - Fax: (202) 522-3240 / (202) 522-3245

GEF

Dear Sir/Madam,

Sub: GEF REVIEW OF CLIMATE CHANGE ENABLING ACTIVITIES:QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PROJECT MANAGERS/ COORDINATORS

I am writing to seek your cooperation to respond to this questionnaire being distributed to collect informationon climate change enabling activities as part of a review being undertaken by the Global EnvironmentalFacility (GEF).

The GEF is undertaking a review of climate change enabling activities supported by the Facility. This reviewis being undertaken at the request of the GEF Council. The Conference of the Parties (COP) of the UnitedNations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has specifically requested the GEF reviewto take into consideration views expressed by the Parties (FCCC/CP/1998/16/Add.l, FCCC/SBI/I999/MISC.2, and FCCC/SBI/1999/MISC.5).

The main objective of the review is to take stock of the past and ongoing experience with the enablingactivity projects, assess their effectiveness and extract lessons for the future. The review, managed by theGEF Monitoring and Evaluation Unit, is being undertaken by an inter-agency taskforce comprised of staffmembers from the UNDP, IJNEP, the World Bank, and the GEF Secretariat, and led by an internationalconsultant, Dr. Samir Amous. The review proposes to collect as much information as possible from a varietyof sources, including desk review of project documents, country visits, country and regional case studies, andquestionnaire surveys.

Please answer the questions fully, according to your best knowledge and return the questionnaire to us inelectronic format if possible, otherwise by any convenient means, such as fax, or mail. If you need to makefurther comments, please do so on the space provided underneath the questions, or attach an additional sheetif necessary.

99


When completing this questionnaire, we also suggest that you consult closely with the project director andother persons who have been involved with the project. This is particularly important if you are not familiarwith the issues on all sections of the questionnaire.

The National Communications Support Program (NCSP), being implemented by the UNDP and UNEP, haskindly volunteered to manage the survey on behalf of the review. Please return completed questionnaires to:

Ms. Bo Lim, Ph.D.Chief Technical AdvisorNational Communications Support ProgrammeUNDP-GEFRoom 1607, 16 Floor304 East 45th StreetNew York, NY 10017Email: bo.JjmQw ,oru, Tel: 1 212 906 5730, Fax: 1 212 906 6568

We would like to thank you in advance for your support and cooperation.

Sincerely Yours,

Jarle HarstadSenior Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator

....... 0...............................................................................................................

100

REVIEW OF GEF'S CLIMATE CHANGE ENABLING ACTIVITIES:

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PROJECT MANAGERS/ COORDINATORS

Country:

Project Name:

GEF Implementing Agency (UNEP, World Bank or UNDP):

Country Executing or Lead Agency:

Brief approval date: ...........................................................................Date of signature of the Project Document: ........................................Date of the first disbursment to the project account:........................................Date of the implementation of the first activity of the project: ...................................Expected Completioni Date: .......................................

Name of the Project Manager/Coordinator: .............................................Duty Station Address: ..........................................................................Tel: ...........................................Fax: ...........................................Email: ........................................

PROJECT DESIGN

1. Are/were you familiar with the GEF "Operational Guidelines for expedited financing of initialCommunications from Non-Annex I Parties"?

F7Yes F No

2. If yes, did you apply these guidelines during project design?

Fa Yes No

3. In your opinion how does the standard activity matrix reflect the generic needs of your country toprepare the Initial Communication?

EE3 Fully E] Partly

Additions needed ..............................................................................................

4. Cost Benchmarks of Enabling Activities (Table Dl of the Operational Guidelines) provided:

a Clear guidance [< Needed further details

What could be added to further guide the budget process? ....................................

101


5. Was your original funding request for the Enabling Activity Project:

-]Request fully met -] Minor reduction of the Budget

II -Major reduction of the Budget [7 Rejected

6. Did you receive any feedback from the respective GEF Implementing Agency (UNDP, UNEP orWorld Bank or) for the final budget ?

[Yes ENo

7. Did you find the feedback satisfactory

-LYes -] No

If No, please provide any relevant explanation:............... ..............................

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

8. Was/Were there (any) component(s) of enabling activities, which could have been improved inimplementation had been more funds allotted to itlthem (please feel free to modify if the categoriesdo not match your specific project document ?

Project Budget The suggestedmore appropriate

budget

Greenhouse Gas Inventories

Vulnerability assessmentPolicy Frameworks for Implementing AdaptationMeasures and Response StrategiesBuilding Capacity to integrate Climate Change Concernsinto Planning_GHG Mitigation abatement strategy, sink enhancementOther Information, including emissions proFNctionsAssesmet of Fiaca *- Technological XXeedXCompilation and Production of Initial NationalCommunicationAny other activity (please specify)

Any additional comment ? ......................................................................................

9. Flexibility of the budget allocations to the country's needs:

During the project formulation ? 7 Flexible Fb7 Not flexible

During the project implementation ? Flexible mNot flexible

102

10. Are/were you able to have an easy access to materials, such as:

IPCC GHG Inventory Guidelines a Yes Ej No

Any specific comments?........................................................................................

GHG mitigation materials Yes No

Any specific comments?..........................................................................................

Vulnerability/Adaptation materials, etc.): a Yes E No

Any specific comments?..........................................................................................

In your opinion, what additional materials would have been useful or have to be developed ?

11. Please assess the level of participation of the following stakeholder groups (please feel free to addany institution that is not in the list):

11.1. Main governmental departmentsDepartment of Energy Full_ Partly None _

Department of Environment Full_ Partly None _

Department of Forestry Full_ Partly None _

Department of Agriculture Full _ Partly None _Department of Transport Full_ Partly None _

Department of Industry Full _ Partly None _Department of Planning Full _ Partly _ None _Department of Meteorology Full_ Partly None _

.................................. . . ...Full_ Partly _ None _

........................ ........... Full _ Partly None _

11.2 Academic and Scientific Community Full- Partly None _

11.3 Local NGOs Full_ Partly - None_

11.4 Private Sector Full _ Partly None _

11.5 Other stakeholders (Pls. Specify).................................. . .Full _ Partly None _.................................. . .Full _ Partly None _

Please add any comment where relevant .....................................................................

103


12. What was the experience in the utilization of consultants? (please answer Yes or No on the box):Local/regional Consultants International Consultant

Easy availability?

Expensive?

Highly capable?

Needed training in order to addressspecific climate change issues

Please specify, on what?

13. Did the use of international consultants help in developing local capacity?

Fa7 Yes No E

14. If Yes, please outline how: .....................................................................................

15. Assistance of the GEF Implementing Agency

How is/was the implementation support provided by the Implementing Agency ?

F7 1Highly satisfactory Eb Satisfactory

FT3 Unsatisfactory EC Highly unsatisfactory

Please outline any additional comment ......................................................................

16. Have you:Requested any assistance provided by the National Communication Support Programme (NCSP) ?

Fa3 Yes 03 No

Bg=fbaed from any assistance from the National Communication Support Programme (NCSP) ?

[a | Yes No

17. If yes, what is your opinion on the assistance provided by this Programme (NCSP)

18. As project coordinator for CC enabling activities in this particular country, what kind of additionalassistance you would have hoped to obtain in order to better meet the Enabling Activity objectives?

104

19. Was there complementary between Climate Change enabling activities and the following relatedprojects/programs? (Please say Yes or No or put NA if the project or program is not present in thecountry):

Regular GEF project(s)

Climate Change Projects of Bilateral Agencies

Climate Change Projects of Multilateral Agencies

Government-Funded Climate Change Projects

NGO-managed/supported Climate Change Projects

Others (Please specify)

PROJECT RESULTS

20. What were the contributions of RegionalGlobal enabling activity projects to country levelenabling acdvities? (Put a check on those items below that applies):

Reaional Proiects Global Projects

Provided sientific data

Helped p'epare local experts i

Created wide awareness l _

Lowered cost of stocktaking _

Other contributions*-----. --------.----,,---1.................. __.. I .. .. . . .. . ..

21. Was there a "spill-over" of the benefits of your Enabling Activity Project to other countries ?

D Yes 7If yes, please specify: .......................................................................................

22. To what extent have enabling activities progressed towards contributing to:

22.1 Establishment of national institutional arrangements to address Climate Change issues

Full - Process still on-going - No progress at all _

Problems encountered? ...............................................................................

22.2 Enhancement of local capacities

Full Partly - Minimal None at all

Reasons for less than full progress? ......................................................

105


22.3 Strengthening of public awareness and development of network of constituencies onclimate change

Full - Partly Minimal None at all

Reasons for less than full progress? .

..................................................................................................

23. To what degree are climate change issues being integrated into sectorial and national priorities asthey are/were identified during preparation of initial national communications.

ma7 Well integrated EC Partly integrated

m Not integrated at all

Reason for the above?.

.....................................................................................................................

OVERALL PROJECT EXPERIENCE

24. What were the most serious problems encountered by your project?:24.1 proposal development24.2 proposal review24.3 start up24.4 implementation24.5 disbursement issues ?

Please specify where relevant :.

.....................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................

............... ......................................................................................................

25. Please list at least two most important lessons learned or/and any Good practice that helped you toaddress some difficulties during the project implementation (best if you can relate these to theproblems in question above).

25.1 .

25.2 .

106

ANNEX 12SYNTHESIS OF VIEWS OF THE PARTIES REGARDING

THE REVIEW OF CLIMATE CHANGE ENABLING

AcTIvITY PROJECTS

1. Parties that submnitted their views

First round of submissions Second round of submissions

(FCCC/SBI/1999/MISC.2) (FCCC/SBI/1999/MISC.5)

Mexico Yes

Philippines Yes

Switzerland Yes

USA Yes

Chile Yes

Kenya Yes

Sudan Yes

Uzbekistan Yes

2. Compilation of the main issues addressed by the submissions and that directly relate to the Review of theexisting EA projects:

2.1 The review should to report transparently on:

* Participating agencies to the review

* Timing and location of the review

* The review approach

* Parties participation

2.2 The review should cover all Enabling Activity projects, including those that don't directly relate tothe preparation of the National Communication

2.3 The review should lead to a clearer understanding of the past project performance and helpidentify measures to increase the effectiveness of EA in the future.

The issues that should be covered include:

* The actual EA project cycle (from official request to the effective availability of funds and theeffects of the EP procedure)

* Functionality of the guidance process (COP to GEF)

o How and in which conditions the revision of the operational programmes is handled bythe GEF as to meet the COP guidance

o How the process could be improved

107


* Operational effectiveness of the implementation of EA projects

o Adequacy of the IA management support (including mid-term evaluation, monitoring,tripartite review, etc.)

o Clarity of the guidelines on the expected products and timetables for implementation

o Quality of the project management within the recipient countries

o Adequacy of the financial control

o Which aspects of project management are found most important for achieving the projectobjectives and completing the project activities in a timely manner

* Problems related to national level implementation by the implementing agencies which mighthave posed difficulty for Non Annex I Parties in the implementation of their commitment underthe UNFCCC:

o Consistency of actions taken by the LAs with the UNFCCC and COP decisions (withsome relevant examples)

o Effectiveness of taking the Annex-I Parties priorities into account

o Effectiveness of encouraging the use of national experts/consultants

o Issues related to the effective availability of funds

o Issues related to the amounts available VS. the amounts requested and the reason for anydifference

* Consideration of any additional issue or concern identified by Non-Annex I Party in theimplementation of EA

* Example of the application of the concept of "Agreed full cost"

* Flexibility of the funds

* The review should also take other-than-GEF contributions to the elaboration of NationalCommunications into account (multilateral, bilateral)

* The review should identify any needs for enabling activities as they might have been defined bythe National Communications that were published so far

* Quality of the outputs produced by the EA projects, including the activities that relate to Nationalcommunications

* Interaction between Enabling Activities and Economic Development Programmes of the recipientcountries

* Effectiveness of the integration of the policies and measures that were identified into the generaldevelopment policies of the recipient countries

108

3. Compilation of the main issues addressed by the submissions that relate to the recommendations for thefuture EA projects':

* Issues to be address in the future by the Enabling Activity projects

o Updating the GHG inventory

o Social, Economic and Environmental Impact Assessment of mitigation options

o Mitigation options

o Energy technology assessments

o Regional studies on vulnerability and adaptation, climate variability and climate change

o Building capacity of the Non-Annex I Parties for participating in the process of design andimplementation of the mechanisms under the Kyoto protocol and for increasing theircapabilities to create new investment partnerships

o Capacity building needed in validation, monitoring, verification, auditing, certification andregistration of CDM projects

o Development of Information Systems

o Building capacity of the Non-Annex I Parties for participating in systematic observationnetworks

o Develop, strengthen and improve national activities for public awareness and education onclimate change

o Maintaining and enhancing relevant national capacities

o Translating, reproducing, disseminating and making the National Communications availableelectronically

o Providing Support to institutional activities (e.g. national CC centres)

1 Also extracted from FCCC/SBUlI999/INF.1O

109

GEFGlobal Environment Facility1818 H Street, NWWashington, DC 20433 USATelephone: 1(202)473-0508Fax: 1(202)522-3240Internet: www.gefweb.org

Q Printed on recyled paper