To: Nani G. Oruga, The Bees Trees
From: Chris N. Eppers, Solar Musketeers
Re: The 'Operational Strategy'- the framework which outlines the kinds of programmes
and projects the GEF will fund.
Dear Nani,
Thanks for your fax. As you said, reading about the structure of the GEF can
be rather dry, especially since it's so far removed from where the action actually
takes place. I'll try to sake your thirst for concrete action with this and
the following letters. In it I'll cover the policies related to choosing the
types of projects the GEF funds, namely the Operational Strategy and
give some ideas for how NGOs can influence the these policies and project selection.
Some Background
The purpose of the Operational Strategy (OS) is to give a view of the GEF's
long term direction a framework for using GEF resources, a way of integrating
the guidance from the related conventions, and a statement of GEF operational
objectives related to funding and monitoring/evaluation activities. In other
words, it is to help focus the GEF project portfolio so that it has maximum
effect. The OS, as a strategy rather than a rule book, does not include very
specific details on things like project selection criteria.
The document to look at is the Revised Draft GEF Operational Strategy (GEF/
C.6/3). It was approved, with modifications, at the October 1995 Council meeting.
The Secretariat should be publishing the modified version in early 1996. My
explanation takes the changes into account; these were given in the summary
of the meeting.
During the Pilot phase, there was no operational strategy. Instead there were
general criteria for project selection that every project had to satisfy and
then specific criteria for each of the focal areas. As the Independent Evaluation
pointed out, there were a variety of actors and motivations. All of these influenced
the project selection criteria. The result was a collection of projects which
individually may, at least partially, have met GEE objectives. As a whole, though,
they were not coherent enough to have the global environmental impact that might
have been possible. The Evaluators therefore recommended that the GEF· should
develop programme objectives and strategies. The GEF Council approved the Operational
Strategy at the October 1995 Council meeting.
The Operational Strategy has a 'policy framework' which describes various considerations
and principles which apply to all GEF activities. I've described it below. The
following four letters take up the specific strategies related to each of the
focal areas (biodiversity, climate change, ozone layer depletion, and international
waters).
The Operational Strategy Policy Framework
The policy framework (Chapter 1) outlines the principles that will guide the
development and implementation of the GEF work programme. They are complemented
by a series of 'strategic considerations' which are more specific guidelines
on designing GEF projects and other related activities. 1 have not listed the
operational principles as they tend to overlap with the strategic considerations
(listed below, with a brief explanation). While it isn't gripping reading, it's
useful to have this information handy for monitoring projects or coming up with
project ideas.
The strategic considerations are:
1. Consistency with national priorities and where appropriate regional initiatives.
In other words, the GEF should not impose projects or other activities on countries,
and furthermore they must fit in with recipient countries' own actions for sustainable
development. Public consultation and involvement are seen as an important way
of ensuring consistency. In regional projects, work would be undertaken in countries
that endorsed the activity, and would be available only to eligible countries.
2. Striving to ensure the sustainability of global environmental benefits.
This means projects should continue to provide benefits even after the GEF grant
has finished. Some of the ways listed to achieve this are through supporting
national policies which are sound from a global environmental perspective or
supporting human resource development and skills to protect the global environment.
3. Reducing the risk caused by uncertainty. There is never certainty that a
particular type of solution to a global environmental problem will work. Having
a diverse portfolio, seeking scientific and technological advice, increasing
and improving environmental information and emphasising monitoring and evaluation
are some of the ways the GEF will try to reduce the risk of failure and consequent
wasting resources.
4. Complementing traditional development financing. This consideration is just
a reiteration of the incremental cost principle and that GEF resources should
be 'new and additional'. In case you forgot what incremental costs are, in a
nutshell, they are the costs of protecting the global environment that go beyond
the costs of national sustainable development. 'New and additional' basically
means that contributions to the GEF should not come as a result of cuts in funds
for other development programmes.
5. Facilitating effective responses by other entities to address global environmental
issues. For example the GEF would work with NGOs and the private sector to develop
actions to protect the global environment, or would support financing approaches
to ensure that recurrent costs of funded activities are met without continued
GEF support. Perhaps more importantly it should also try to get the Implementing
Agencies and other similar organisations to integrate global environmental considerations
in their work.
6. Being environmentally, socially, and financially sustainable. This point,
like the term 'sustainable development' can't be pinned down, but the general
idea is that activities should not create demands on the environment or put
any aspect of it at risk, that activities won't be opposed by people or societies
over time or result in their marginalisation, and that, for example, there are
means for financing the recurrent costs of projects once the GEF contribution
is used.
7. Avoiding the transfer o/ negative environmental-impacts between focal areas.
For example biomass projects in the climate change focal area should not result
in a loss of biodiversity. Or, substitutions of ozone depleting substances should
not contribute to climate change.
The policy framework describes the three main types of activities that will
be carried out in each of the focal areas. These are long-term response measures
grouped in 'operational programmes', enabling activities, and short-term response
measures.
An operational programme is a set of similar projects which together should
contribute to overall programme objectives. The idea behind operational programmes
is that focusing GEF resources around a limited number of project types would
have greater and longer term impacts. For example, a collection of projects
to support adoption of renewable energy technologies, such as wind power in
a certain region, might not immediately lower CO2 emissions. Through favorable
economic and regulatory measures, training, information, technical assistance
and investment in specific projects, these types of technologies are much more
likely to be adopted and at an earlier date than might be expected. The programmes
provide a framework for project design, implementation and monitoring. They
also make for more efficient project development and implementation and the
IAs will gain more experience by carrying out a number of similar projects.
All of the focal areas, except that on ozone layer depletion, will have operational
programmes. Examples of initial operational programmes include one on arid and
semi-arid ecosystems in the biodiversity focal area, one on removing barriers
to energy conservation and energy efficiency in the climate change area, and,
for international waters, one on contaminants.
The focal area operational strategies indicate what some of the initial operational
programmes will be. However, reference documents for each programme are just
now being prepared. Among other things, these documents should clarify the programme
objectives, such as specifying a market, or type of ecosystem; relate the programme
to relevant convention guidance; and describe the roles of investment, capacity
building, enabling activities, technical assistance, and targeted research.
Enabling activities are supposed to provide countries with the ability to develop
and implement programmes to address global environmental problems. The activities
would include inventories, compilation of information, policy analysis, strategies
and action plans. They may fulfil reporting requirements to a convention, provide
information so that policy and strategic decisions can be made, or assist planning
that identifies priority activities within a country.
Depending on the activity either the agreed full cost or agreed incremental
cost would be funded by the GEF.
Short-term response measures are activities that give benefits quickly,
but not necessarily over the long term. They can be a way of buying time until
a more permanent solution can be found, for example urgent measures to conserve
an extremely endangered species. They should also be low cost solutions. As
one description put it, the activities would be "too good to miss".
They might also be activities that don't fit into any of the operational programmes,
but for which operational programmes might be developed in the future.
How can NGOs shape the project portfolio?
NGOs can shape GEF choice of projects in two primary ways. One way is at the
level of individual projects. You can review and monitor projects that are in
the pipeline. When a project appears to have problems or contradict GEF objectives,
you can lobby your government or work with other NGOs to get Council members
to ask questions about it. It is not often that a project will be cancelled,
but at least the problems might be resolved. You can also highlight successful
projects, or give ideas for projects to your government. In the latter case
you might eventually become involved in project implementation. (Letter 10 gives
more information about how NGOs can be involved in projects.)
Another way of shaping the project portfolio is through trying to influence
the policies, programmes, and criteria that the GEP uses to identify and select
projects. This can be done through providing ideas to the Secretariat as they
begin to develop policy papers, and by providing Council members with both ideas
for and reactions to proposed policies. For the biodiversity and climate change
focal areas. you can also have some impact through the convention processes.
As I mentioned earlier and in Letter 3, these two conventions give guidance
to the GEF on the types and priorities of the projects and programmes it will
fund. When the Parties to the convention of the particular focal area you are
interested in meet (at the COP sessions), you can suggest what you would like
to see in their guidance to the GEF
When you are trying to influence Council members, your chances of succeeding
are much better if you work with other NGOs. Then it is possible to present
joint statements, and the other NGOs can talk with Council members they might
know better than you do. It helps if you can start this process before the Council
meeting: other NGOs will be able to give more thought to your concerns, and
therefore will be more likely to address them at the meeting. (See Letter 11
for more about NGO participation in Council meetings.)
The next four letters give details on the operational strategies for each of
the focal areas, NGO views on them, and experiences from the Pilot Phase. I
hope the information will help you to develop project ideas and monitor other
GEF projects, as well as shape any positions you might take regarding policies
on the focal areas.
