22342 Evaluation Report #2-00 _~~~~~~~ Climt October 2000 GEF FILE COPY REVIEW OF CLIMATE CHANGE ENABLING ACTIVITY PROJECTS OCTOBER 2000 CORE TEAM SamirAmous, Team Leader/International Consultant Jarle Harstad, GEF Corporate Monitoring and Evaluation Team Martin Krause, UNDP-GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Unit Bo Lim, National Communications Support Program Ramesh Ramankutty, GEF Corporate Monitoring and Evaluation Team Ademola Salau, UNDP-GEF Climate Change Team/ Regional Coordinator for Africa Mahesh Sharma, World Bank Ravi Sharma, UNEP Miguel Perez Torralba, UNDP-GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Unit Avani Vaish, GEF Secretariat COUNTRY/REGIONAL LOCAL CONSULTANTS CASE STUDIES Aida Iskoyan, Armenia Mohamed El-Sobki, Egypt Imran Behbudov, Azerbaijan Jaime Bustillo Pon, Honduras Emilio La Rovere, Brazil Priyadarshi Shukla, India Mauricio Meza Caestro, Bolivia Sivalingam Gunanathlingam, Malaysia J.H. Chendjou, Cameroon Cletus Springer, Caribbean region Riad Chedid, Lebanon John Hay, Pacific Islands region Lucy Khalema Redeby, Lesotho Arona Coulibaly, Mali Marisol Portal, Philippines Khorrombi Matibe, South Africa Nguyen Duc Minh, Vietnam David Mbewe, Zambia The views expressed in this study are those of the core team members and do not necessarily 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 for change 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 had 16, 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 studies that have failed, and consider policy and pro- were prepared on Egypt, Honduras, India, and grammatic responses to the problem." Malaysia. In addition, regional case studies were prepared on the islands in the Caribbean The main audience for this review, in addition to and the Pacific respectively. Statistical data the GEF Council, consists of the cooperating was also collected on enabling activity projects countries, 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 leader emmental organizations and private enterprises prepared draft reports based on inputs from engaged in climate change matters. the team, the GEF Secretariat, and the three Implementing Agencies. Advanced drafts of The 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 political ation 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 GEF retariat. The Terms of Reference constitutes Council for discussion at the November 2000 Annex 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 final leader) 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 the regional 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 members collected data from a variety of sources, and Jarle Harstad Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator iii ACKNOWLEDGMENT This review was made possible by the George Manful at the Secretariat for the United excellent cooperation extended by the Nations Framework Convention on Climate governments and other project participants in Change. Jack Fitzgerald of the United States the countries that were visited to collect Country Studies program was helpful in information and countries whose experiences discussing the experiences under that prograrn. were documented under the country or Sam Fankhauser, currently with the European regional case studies. Bank for Reconstruction and Development, was kind enough to brief us on the early days of the Our thanks are due to the local consultants in enabling activity projects when he was at the the 12 countries that we visited, who helped GEF Secretariat. us by preparing the groundwork for the review exercise, arranging for meetings with Staff at the GEF Secretariat, UNDP, UNEP, and government agencies and other project the World Bank were willing to spend time with participants, including NGOs and academic us sharing their perspectives and insights institutions, and following up on any issues that regarding the GEF and its operations. Particular required further inquiry. The consultants who mention must be made of the immense undertook the regional and country case contribution of William Faries, a consultant for studies approach their individual assignments the GEF Secretariat, who participated in the data with utmost professionalism and delivered analysis and in editing and finalizing the review studies that proved very useful in preparing report. the final report. We would also like to thank Chemonics International, Washington, D.C., The report was desk-topped by Elizabeth George for identifying and recruiting the consultants. ofthe GEF Corporate Monitoring and Evaluation Team. The review benefited from discussions with Claire Parker, Martha Perdomo and SamirAmous Ramesh Ramankutty Team 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. I Introduction .1 Review of the GEF Enabling Activity Portfolio for Climate Change .1 Overall Findings. 3 From COP Guidance to Operationalization. 4 Implementation Issues. 8 Project Results .12 II. COP GUIDANCE AND GEF RESPONSES .17 Elements of COP Guidance to the GEF Relevant to Enabling Activities .17 GEF Response to Guidance from the COP .19 Assessment of the GEF Response .21 III. EFFECTIVENESS OF OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES .25 Interpretation of the Operational Guidelines .25 Applicability and Flexibility to the Countries' Needs .25 Effects of Expedited Procedures on Project Processing .26 Disbursement Issues .29 Dissemination of Operational Guidelines .29 IV. PORTFOLIO OVERVIEW .31 Analysis of the Climate Change Enabling Activities Portfolio .31 Budget for Administration Costs .32 Administrative Support for Project Management from the Corporate Budget .33 Executing Agency Fees/Agency Support Costs .34 Overall Analysis of the Budget Support Issues .34 V. DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION .35 Effectiveness in Meeting the Objectives Set Forth by the Operational Guidelines 35 Efficiency of the Project Design Cycle .38 Time Constraints .39 Funding Constraints .40 Roles of the Partners in the Enabling Activity Project Cycle .41 GEF Secretariat .42 UNDP .43 UNEP .46 The World Bank .47 Implementation of Other Climate Change Work .48 Technical Support .50 Country Level Implementation Issues .55 Assessment of Reporting and Management Procedures .59 V VI. PROJECT RESULTS ................................................................... 61 Technical Products ................................................................... 61 Other Achievements ................................................................... 62 VII. GOOD PRACTICES ................................................................... 67 Achieving Additional Benefits That Serve Regional and International Concerns ......... 67 Achieving Outreach and Information Exchange Benefits Through the Use of Internet ................................................................... 67 Involving the Media in the Public-Awareness Effort .......................... .......................... 68 Developing Interaction Between Projects ................................................................... 69 Participation in International Training Workshops and International Events ......... ........ 69 Enhancing Political Support from the Highest Levels of Government ........... ............... 70 Wider Participation of the Stakeholders ................................................................... 70 Flexibility in Reallocating Project Funding ................................................................... 71 Flexibility in Redesigning the Project Activities ............................................................. 71 A./NNEXES 1. Terms of Reference ................................................................... 75 2. The Review Approach ................................................................... 83 3. List of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects ................................................................. 87 4. Documents and References Consulted ................................................................... 90 5. 1996 Criteria and 1997 Guidelines: Cost Norms ................................................................... 92 6. Criteria for Reviewing Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects as Included in Operational Criteria for Enabling Activities - 1996 ................ ......................... 93 7. Annexes Included in Operational Criteria for Enabling Activities - 1996 ............. ................... 94 8. Annexes Included in Operational Guidelines for Expedited Financing of Initial Communications from Non-Annex 1 Parties - 1997 ............. ................... 95 9. Paragraphs of Decision 1 l/CP.2 that are Relevant to Enabling Activities ............ .................. 96 10. Needs and Major Priorities Expressed by the Beneficiary Countries for the Development of the Future EA Projects ...................... .......................... 97 11. Questionnaire for the Survey Undertaken by the Review ................................ ...................... 99 12. 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 endogenous capacity building, including institutional strengthening, training, research and education, 1. This report presents the findings of a that will facilitate implementation, in review of GEF-funded climate change enabling accordance with the Convention, of effective activity projects. Funding for climate change response measures."3 enabling activity projects was launched by GEF as a response to guidance from COP 1 4. The enabling activity program was part requesting the GEF to give priority to supporting of the GEF operational strategy that aimed to non-Annex I Parties in meeting their support non-Annex I Parties in fulfilling their commitments under the UNFCCC.2 commitments under the UNFCCC at full cost funding. According to the GEF Operational 2. The commitments of non-Annex I Parties Strategy,4 enabling activities "include [GHG] mainly relate to the preparation of Initial Stries,compilaitonofincludeioGHGi Communications (IC) to the UNFCCC, which inventories, compilation of informnation, policy requniresthe implementation of relevant analysis, and strategies and action plans. They requires mainlemengton of reparan either are a means of fulfilling essential activities, 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 information climate change-related information; to enable policy and strategic decisions to be (ii) General description of steps taken or to able pland trat decisies torit envisaged to implement the Convention; and made, or assist planning that identifies priority (iii) Any other information relevant to the achievement of the objectives of the Convention. REVIEW OF THE GEF ENABLING ACTIVITY 3. The COP guidance was issued as a responsetoArticle 12.7 ofthe UNFCCC stating PORTFOLIO FOR CLIMATE that "The COP shall arrange for the provision to developing country Parties of technical and CHANGE financial support, on request, in compiling and communicating information under Article 12, 5. This review began in February 2000. At as well as identifying the technical and financial that time, 115 countries had implemented needs associatedwith the proposedprojects..." national climate change enabling activity In the context of climate change, enabling projects, while 1O other regional/global climate activities 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 7 April, 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. Nor to take stock of the past and ongoing experience does it provide the final results and impacts in with the enabling activity projects for climate all the 115 countries supported. However, the change, assess their effectiveness and extract review was based on a large set of information lessons for the future. More specifically, the collected from a variety of sources, including review had to examine: (i) the effectiveness of consultations with the major actors of the the enabling activity modality; (ii) the enabling activity process.5 Specifically, the effectiveness and efficiency of both GEF review approach included: (i) Review of COP approval and national execution processes; decisions and SBI/SBSTA communications; (iii) influence onbroadercapacitybuilding and/ (ii) Views related to enabling activities orplanningincountriesthroughthepreparation expressed by the Parties through the of 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, and experiences. international, regional and local NGOs); (iv) Country visits by members of the core 6. 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 national consultations were held within the GEF Secre- consultants; (vi) Regional case studies prepared tariat, the three Implementing Agencies, and by regional consultants; (vii) Questionnaire the UNFCCC Secretariat. As recommended survey; (viii) Review of documentation available by the COP, the terms of reference paid par- at the three Implementing Agencies (including ticular attention to addressing the questions and the National Communications Support views expressed by the Parties with respect to Programme), the GEF Secretariat, and the the review of enabling activities. The terms of UNFCCC Secretariat; and (ix) Discussions reference have defined seven major issues to with the three Implementing Agencies and the be addressed by the review: (i) Response to GEF Secretariat. guidance from the COP; (ii) Effectiveness of the Operational Criteria; (iii) Portfolio Over- 8. The review included close examination of view; (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 by country studies,7 and two regional projects in 7. The review does not claim to be fully the Pacific Islands and Caribbean' were representative 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, and Zambia. 7 Egypt, Honduras, India, and Malaysia. 8 Five countries each in the Pacific (Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Samoa and Vanuatu) and Caribbean (Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and The Grenadines, Guyana) were visited/studied by each of the regional consultants for the PICCAP and CPACC projects respectively. 2 Summary and Recommendations OVERALL FINDINGS enabling activity projects made considerable progress 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, the change enabling activities has substantially enabling activity program experienced many contributed towards assisting non-Annex I difficulties, largely due to the novelty and Parties in meeting their communication complexitieof late cae issue asvell as commitments under the UNFCCC. The GEF complexity of climate change issues, as well as Secretariat and its Implementing Agencies the constraints that surrounded the development have undertaken a large challenge in a new of enabling activity projects. These constraints and complex area of international cooperation. included definition ofthe scope and objectives Despite the complexity of the task and the of the projects, tame pressure, funding difficulties encountered, the GEF role has, by limitations, etc. For instance, the review found and large, been positive. To some extent, thatthe enablingactivity projectsplaced undue many 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) at Agencies and the GEF Secretariat have theexpenseofrespondingtocountryneedsand learned 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 initial GEF grants through the enabling activity communications, the GEF-sponsored enabling process, 25 have already transmitted their activities are neither a clear step in the direction initial communication to the UNFCCC as of of sustainable capacity building, nor have they May 2000.9 Among these countries, 23 helped countries prepare to develop policies and implemented enabling activity projects strategies required to deal with climate change. throughi UNDP,te and twothroughi UNEP. A Supporting this finding, the review also found large number of countries are currently that the countries had higher expectations for progressing towards the completion of their capacity building than what the enabling activity initial 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, including part, 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 institutional documents was impressive, and provided not arrangements, and integration of climate change only national, but international benefits as concerns into national development policies. well. Many of these objectives-particularly the last one-have not been satisfactorily completed in any 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 (1-2 The 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 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects beginning of the process, this review finds that Financing, clearly tying the Activity Matrix and the enabling activity projects had unrealistic the Cost Norms to the guidelines for national expectations when setting such objectives. communications defined in 1 0/CP.2." Finally, in response to COP4 guidance, the GEF issued 16. Thus, the first round of enabling activities Operational Guidelines for Expedited should be considered a first step in a continuous Financing - Part II to comprehensively and 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 of obligations 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 sufficient time to define the appropriate approach to O FINDINGS expediting its procedures. In addition, the COP decisions tended to cover a large number of T TheGEFResponsetoCOPGuidance issues at once, giving room for divergent interpretations and making the process of 17. Three major sets of enabling activity- operationalization very complex. related guidance were issued by the Conference of Parties. COP1 (11/CP.1) directed the GEF 20. In practice, the review finds that as soon to give priority to the support of national as the national communication was identified communications referred to in Article 12.1 of as the main objective of expedited enabling the Convention. COP2 adopted detailed activity projects, the GEF guidelines guidelines 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 the CP.2) and confirmed that these new guidelines primary role of enabling activities, the GEF and format would form the basis for the funding response is judged to have been pragmatic and of communications from non-Annex I Parties. timely. At COP4, guidance to the GEF emphasized the need for funding support to prepare initial and 21. The Operational GuidelinesforEnabling subsequent national communications "by Activities was developed by the GEF maintaining and enhancing relevant national Secretariat, in consultation with the three capacity" (2ICP.4). Implementing Agencies and the UNFCCC Secretariat, and subsequently approved by the 18. The GEF responses to COP guidance took GEF Council. It should be noted that these between 8 and 12 months. Inresponseto COPI consultations did not directly involve the guidance, the GEF developed Operational countries. The review also received mixed Criteria for EnablingActivities. Following the feedback regarding incorporation of the views COP2 guidance, the GEF issued new of the GEF partners'2 by the GEF Secretariat Operational 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 funding bodies previously supported in the countries. 12 UNDP, UNEP, The World Bank and the UNFCCC Secretariat. 4 Summary and Recommendations I Operationalization of the GEF I Effectiveness of Enabling Activity Guidelines projects in meeting the objectives set forth by the Operational Guidelines 22. While it was clear to the implementing agencies that the emphasis of the enabling 25. While enabling activity projects generally activity projects was on the rapid preparation met the objectives set forth in the Operational of the initial communication, there were Guidelines, the review team observed that instances of divergent interpretations between "country drivenness" was narrowly interpreted the GEF entities,"3 particularly at the beginning in terms of endorsement of projects by the of the process. national GEF operational focal points, without appropriate stakeholder consultations and 23. In addition, the recipient countries did not assessments of national priorities. This was always interpret the GEF guidelines and the part of the trade-off that the expedited COP 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 focal was requested by countries for meeting their points were familiar with the GEF Operational priority needs, such as capacity building, or for Guidelines, the review finds that neither the launching additional studies in some critical Implementing Agencies nor the GEF national aspects of climate change, such as vulnerability focal points made efforts to widely disseminate and adaptation assessments. Such these guidelines within the countries. This misinterpretation resulted, in some cases, in often prevented a more effective inclusion of long negotiations which delayed the overall wider sectoral concerns into the project project approval process. This caused proposals. frustration in the countries regarding the effectiveness of enabling activities in meeting 27. In addition, the use of cost norms also their expectations. presented the countries with a fait accompli, providing little flexibility and no fungibility of 24. The review finds that the Operational funds. There is also concern as to whether the Guidelines 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 processing and quality of the products generated by these previous efforts. Since participation in earlier 28. The overall objective of introducing projects was considered as the basis for expedited procedures for enabling activities defining the amount of funding a country would was to reduce project processing time and receive from the GEF, this was the most provide timely resources to countries to meet frequently debated issue during project their reporting obligations under the negotiations between the GEF Secretariat, the Convention. Under the expedited procedures ImplementingAgencies and the countries. On for enabling activities, the GEF Council certain projects, unfair competition, mainly delegated the approval authority, for projects focusing on the overall funding level, hampered requesting less than US$350,000, to the the collaborative spirit between the Chairman/CEO of the GEF. Implementing Agencies involved. 13 UNDP, UNEP and The World Bank. 5 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects 29. Duringtheperiod1995-1998,therewasa O RECOMMENDATIONS significant decrease (60%) in the time taken to process 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 formulation days 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 more countries) are partly responsible for the effective role ofthe Implementing Agencies in excessive elapsed time during different stages the finalization of the guidelines and a more of project design and processing, some of this collaborative spirit among all the actors of the delay can be attributed to a necessary leaming enabling activity process, including the period 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 and guidance-and different interpretations of the means for involving technical experts from the GEF guidelines. recipient countries in these consultations. 30. Nevertheless, this review finds that 188 33. The review finds that greater precision in days for processing enabling activity projects COP guidance and GEF guidelines could go a under a procedure that is supposed to be long way towards removing ambiguities expedited is still too long. While the GEF associated with the definition and the finality partners have considerably decreased the of some terms (e.g. enabling activity, capacity elapsed time at the three initial milestones of building, etc.) and help in an uniform the 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 guidelines through 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 cost country level. But any further reduction in norms and activity matrix. However, this processing time needs to be waged carefully in should be accomplished while maintaining a light of the recommendations for broader consistent application both across the stakeholder consultation. Implementing Agencies and the recipient countries. 31. While some countries have complained of disbursement delays, the review found that 34. The review recommends that a fuller these occurred in only a few instances and assessment of the quality of climate change rarely affected project implementation. Rather, related activities previously undertaken be more significant implementation delays have factored into the context when finalizing the been caused by issues such as development of level of GEF support. It is also important that the budget and work plan, identification of the countries, the Implementing Agencies and consultants, and establishment of institutional the GEF Secretariat be more focused and arrangements. 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) project start to first disbursement. 6 Summary and Recommendations expectations, given the available funding and 38. Themajormilestonesoftheprojectdesign time 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 on of a sustainable enabling activity process should the progress within the design cycle, including be defined by COP and operationalized by the the country-level endorsement, so that the main GEF. partners involved can follow the process closely and intervene to break unnecessary deadlocks 35. 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 the needs 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 processing additional efforts are required by the GEF and cycle and the necessary details to identify the its Implementing Agencies to further streamline actual status of the project in the cycle. While the processing of enabling activity projects. greater transparency in the project cycle might While this inevitably implies some trade-offs, it require additional resources, this is a critical is important that any possible deviation from issue and one which the review recommends the original spirit ofthe enabling activity projects that the GEF explore. that may result from these trade-offs is minimized. 39. UNDP has made considerable efforts to shorten the project processing cycle over the 36. The review also recommends that the past five years to remove bottlenecks.'6 Implementing Agencies and the national GEF However, the elapsed time for project focal points disseminate rapidly and widely any processing by lTNDP should be shortened even new 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 the proposals. Also, the countries should facilitate intemalization of its GEF activities, including the process of stakeholder consultations, enabling activity projects. However, the review negotiations with the Implementing Agencies, found that for enabling activities managed by and signature and project approval, and remove UNEP there is room for further improvement the administrative barriers that significantly in processing times. hamper project approval and implementation. 40. In order to facilitate the implementation 37. In addition, the review also recommends of these recommendations, it is suggested that that a more balanced approach, with appropriate a "Good Practice" manual be developed by the stakeholder participation and consultation and GEF Secretariat and the Implementing an assessment of national priorities, be part of Agencies, addressing the modalities for the "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 document was signed, in order to allow the project to quickly begin. More recently, a new system is being put in place to expeditiously process 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 budget advances requests, etc., should be processed by UNDP more efficiently. 18 This included establishing a Project Coordination Committee entrusted with reviewing and adopting GEF activities separate and distinct from UNEP Project Approval Group. 7 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects projects. This manual should be distributed to provide consistent technical and supervision the Implementing Agencies and their support. The GEF seems to have recognized representatives, as well as to the countries, this weakness. Under the new fee-based allowing for a uniform interpretation ofthe GEF system, the implementing agencies receive guidelines. US$54,000 per enabling activity project towards administrative expenses covering the IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES full project cycle. 0J FINDINGS Roles of the GEF Secretariat and the Implementing Agencies / Project duration 44. Thecountries,theImplementingAgencies and the GEF Secretariat have all played 41. The review notes that, with few essential roles in the development ofthe climate exceptions, most countries experienced change enabling activity portfolio. During difficulties in completing their enabling activity project implementation, however, the projects within the timeframe defined in the involvement of the GEF Secretariat was quite project documents. In that respect, expectations limited, while the Implementing Agencies and in terms of project duration were unrealistic. the countries were fully involved. Several factors explain the longer time horizon neededforthe implementationofprojects, such 45. Overall, the needs of the recipient as (i) Starting difficulties (nominating or countries for technical and managerial support recruiting a project coordinator, selecting an were higher than originally anticipated in the appropriate team, building the relevant early phase of the program. According to the institutional arrangement, etc.); (ii) Availability Implementing Agencies, the GEF guidelines and reliability of data; and (iii) Longer time did not give room for more substantial support needed for the validation of technical outputs to the countries and this prevented them from by all the concerned stakeholders. allocating the level of human resources that would have better met country needs. / Funding Issues 46. Given these resource constraints, UNDP 42. Thereviewfindsthat,ingeneral,thelevel viewed its role as mainly consisting of of funding support has been sufficient for the management oversight, with any possible preparation of the national communication, and technical contribution provided on an ad-hoc other basic documents. However, objectives basis. UNEP responded to the needs for linked to the sustainability of capacity building technical support, in part, through assistance and institutional arrangements, as well as the in procuring appropriate consultants and integration of climate change concerns into advisors. In practice, technical assistance was national development policies, were unrealistic provided through consultants hired by the given 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 national 43. The estimated budgetary resources executing agency. GEF later responded to these provided for enabling activities to the needs for additional technical assistance by Implementing Agencies are judged to be funding the National Communication Support inadequate. This might have limited the Program (NCSP). capacities of the Implementing Agencies to 8 Summary and Recommendations 47. The UNDP country offices were critical meeting to assess progress based on the APR in ensuring general management oversight, and make management recommendations if including administrative support; serving as a necessary. Nevertheless, as they are presently liaison with UNDP New York; and facilitating formulated, the APRs and TPR reports cannot the development and implementation of the be considered relevant tools for technical projects. Even though they had a limited oversight and supervision of the projects. technical contribution at the outset, some UNDP country offices later strengthened their 51. Since UNEP does not have any country ability to address global environment issues by offices, implementation supervision is enhancing 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 UNEP interventions are based on direct contact with consists of continuous interaction with the the national executing agencies, the reaction national project coordinators, and quarterly of UNEP in addressing institutional or other progress reports that are submitted by the kinds of problems at the national level was project coordinator. However, this review finds usually neither timely nor adequate. UNEP that the quarterly progress reports are not decided not to interfere in resolving what it substantive and do not clearly identify problems considered as internal institutional issues of the in project implementation. While the project countries concerned. For instance, among the manager is usually aware of problems in project five UNEP-managed projects visited under this implementation, his broad portfolio and other review, three suffered from delays caused by responsibilities often preclude him from in-country institutional difficulties affecting responding effectively to problems as they implementation. develop during implementation. / Assessment of Reporting and 52. As for the overall management, the review Management Procedures finds that there is currently no systematic process in place-except the NCSP, which has 49. Overall, the reporting and management a limited lifespan-to obtain a GEF-wide procedures established by the Implementing understanding of the implementation progress Agencies do not allow for appropriate and results of enabling activities. monitoring and supervision of enabling activity project implementation, particularly on / Technical support technical issues. To some extent, the NCSP has contributed to filling this gap. However, 53. The enabling activity projects allowed for the institutionalization of an adequate reporting an extensive use of national consultants, and management function in the GEF is a originating mainly from academia or affiliated crucial 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 for 50. In the case of UNDP, supervision of the international expertise. However, the budget implementation of enabling activity projects is limitations of the national enabling activity delegated to the UNDP country offices. As a projects often prevented or limited countries result, the major monitoring mechanism for from hiring international experts. UNDP is the Annual Programme/Project Report (APR), drafted by the project 54. Where involved, international consultants coordinator and submitted to the UNDP office contributed to providing technical backstopping in the country in preparation for the annual support, as well as sharing and transferring Tripartite Review (TPR)-a high policy-level experience and knowledge to the national 9 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects project staff. In general, recipient countries experience related to the crucial issues expressed a high level of satisfaction regarding associated with enabling activity projects and the contribution of international experts. the preparation of the national communication. All this "capital" will be lost unless the project 55. The opportunity to exchange information continues. and experiences via the internet or during training 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 between for enhancing their capacities. However, UNDP and UNEP was not perfect, and that the because of budget and time constraints, quality of the support provided to enabling expedited climate change enabling activity activity projects would be considerably projects did not place much emphasis on these improved if closer coordination of project types of activities. activities could be established between the two agencies. 56. Many countries reported frustration at the lack of materials and software for carrying out 59. The review noted that there was no technical studies, or lack of resources to acquire systematic peer-review process of technical them, particularly those related to projections reports prepared under the enabling activity and 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 assistance additional assistance, UNDP took the leading through the NCSP, much to the satisfaction of role in preparing a first proposal of the National the recipient countries. In addition, UNEP took Communication Support Programme the lead in establishing technical review (NCSP).19 This program was jointly requirements for sectoral reports within the implemented by UNDP and IJNEP, and aimed context of enabling activities, though it was not at meeting the additional technical assistance included as a requirement in any of the project needs of the countries and identifying the most documents. Initially, UNEP provided technical appropriate remedial actions to the obstacles reviews to countries using in-house expertise encountered by non-Annex I parties during the and later encouraged the national project implementation of the enabling activity coordinators to seek external reviews within projects. During the last year, participating the existing national budgets. UNEP also countries have recognized the positive results provided names of potential reviewers and ofthe NCSP as having at least partly offset the advice concerning their suitability within the gaps of national enabling activity projects in individual context, terms of technical assistance, although program execution only started in 1999, while national O RECOMMENDATIONS enabling activity projects began in 1995. However, the NCSP is close to completion 60. With the experience already acquired by while 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 fewer increasing and evolving. Moreover, the NCSP difficulties in the future. However, the review has 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 to countries to address identified gaps in the enabling activity projects. Therefore, it was important to the review to assess to what extent these gaps have been filled. 10 Summary and Recommendations activity projects be extended to 2.5 years2t if and means to provide country offices with the project focuses solely on the preparation greater technical expertise. of national communication, and 3-3.5 years if additional activities such as public awareness, 64. This review also recommends that UNEP policy integration, or other aspects of capacity strengthen the use of the quarterly report for building are emphasized. supervision purposes and develop a regular system of visits to countries. A means of 61. The review also recommends that ensuring greater and more regular interaction additional 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 done by providing the enabling activity projects with 65. In addition, the review recommends that the opportunity to enhance exchanges of the GEF establish an annual stock-taking information and experience through, for review of enabling activities, in order to obtain instance, the participation of country an institution-wide understanding of the representatives in international seminars and performance of these projects and improve workshops, as well as the broadening of overall management. technical training to different groups of participants. 66. Regarding the technical assistance provided by international consultants, the 62. Since the issue of unfair competition review recommends that national enabling betweentheImplementingAgenciesmayarise activity projects should have access to again in the future, the review recommends that additional resources allowing countries to the roles and collaborative practices of the resort to such international expertise when Implementing Agencies in climate change appropriate. enabling activity projects be better defined. The GEF Secretariat can contribute to 67. Furthermore, in order to provide strengthening the collaborative spirit and continuous backstopping and technical helping ensure consistent application of the assistance to projects, the review recommends guidelines across the agencies. Moreover, the that UNDP and UNEP expand the practice of GEF Secretariat can also contribute to hiring competent regional experts, or stimulating synergies between the projects by supporting regional centers of excellence, to maintaining a transparent and accessible assist recipient countries in addressing information system and keeping track of all technical enabling activity-related issues, enabling activity projects from the beginning particularly through peer-reviewing of project of the design process. documents. 63. This review finds that implementation 68. In terms of additional assistance and supervision at both UNDP and UNEP has room support needed by the countries, while it the for improvement. For example, the review role ofthe independent evaluation ofthe NCSP noted that where strong and very qualified that is being undertaken to provide a support was provided by the UNDP country comprehensive assessment of the NCSP's offices, the enabling activity projects were performance, this review sees merits in the generally very successful. Therefore, the continuation of the NCSP, given its critical review 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 yet to be decided by the COP. This recommendation is therefore relevant provided that it is consistent with the COP decision. 11 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects contribution to supporting the enabling activity 72. The experience with participation by civil program as a whole. society in enabling activity projects varied considerably. For instance, the involvement 69. In light of the challenges associated with of experts from universities and academic access to software, the review recommends that institutions was, in most cases, essential for the GEF and the Implementing Agencies project progress. On the other hand, in the explore the various possibilities and mechanisms regional/global enabling activity projects, the through which countries could better access NGOs often played a critical role, in the essential software, as well as any associated steering committees as well as in participating documentation and necessary training. in the various activities of the projects. Regarding the national enabling activity PROJECT RESULTS projects, NGO involvement was mostly effective, however there were also instances of weak 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 Change the enabling activity projects were associated Concerns and Results into Planning with the establishment of institutional Activities arrangements, coordination among the different ministries involved, awareness raising among 73. The review finds that the enabling activity policymakers, and a lack of motivation among projects placed unrealistic expectations on such government representatives to contribute challenging objectives as integration of climate significantly to the studies and to report to their change concerns and results into the hierarchy. 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 awareness 71. The review also notes the weaknesses of raising activities and information exchange project documents regarding institutional among and within governmental agencies. strengthening21 on climate change matters, in general, and on enabling activities, in particular 1 Capacity building due to inadequate resource allocations and inappropriate activities for achieving these 74. The enabling activity projects have goals. Thus, countries had limited motivation contributed significantly towards enhancing the to sustain the institutional arrangements scientific and technical knowledge in countries, established during the course of the enabling and to developing new methodologies for activity projects, including, for instance, addressing climate change. Despite these keeping the job responsibilities of trained staff results, many countries have expressed similar or even vaguely related to climate concems about the sustainability of the process change issues. -once the projects complete implementation, 21 For instance, by permanently establishing a key climate change specialist or group in each national institution involved in the enabling activity project. 12 Summary and Recommendations countries are not sure how to keep the teams assessing the impacts of climate change, and in place for the preparation of the subsequent to design cost-effective adaptation response national communications. These concerns measures. The majority of developing countries, were addressed by COP decision 2/CP.4, to in their comments to reviewers, expressed the which the GEF Council responded to by need to prioritize work on vulnerability approving additional funding for further assessment recognizing the relative dearth of supporting capacity building needs in priority detailed information concerning the impact of areas.22 While the financing granted through climate change on water resources, food top-up funding will likely contribute to security and other sectors in developing maintaining the climate change process, it countries. represents only an interim solution until a more long 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 activity 75. While in many cases, the quality of some projects. Other common issues include a lack technical reports was highly satisfactory, of long-term capacity building in appropriate countries have generally faced serious institutions and insufficient infrastructure, such difficulties in this area. Among the factors as monitoring stations for systematic affecting the quality of the documents, three observation and early warning systems. were identified as critical: (i) uncertainties associated with the quality ofthe basic data, or 78. Development ofprojects for abatement or difficulties in obtaining them; (ii) insufficient adaptation options is an obvious follow-up of training or fading out of knowledge gained from enabling activity projects. However, this is not training; and (iii) absence of internal and allowed by the Guidelines despite UNDP's external peer review of documents produced. arguments in favor of developing abatement and adaptation project proposals as a part of 76. Many countries have indicated a need to the enabling activity projects. Though some enhance data reliability through more good examples of investment actions have systematic data collection efforts. This was, emerged from enabling activities,23 enabling for example, a major constraint in conducting activity projects have not explicitly addressed a sound vulnerability assessment in many concrete investment activities, and the GEF has countries. In particular, the review notes the not made yet significant steps towards clarifying need and importance of allocating significantly this issue,24 though many countries expressed more 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 ceiling amounting 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 to further 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 expressed by Parties, the SBI noted the information contained in document FCCC/SBI/1999/INF4 and recommended that the 'list of projects 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 multilateral financing institutions through the established channels for such assistance." 13 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects V Outreach, information relied too heavily on international consultancy dissemination and exchange companies or individuals. This generated frustration and compounded the weak 79. Websites represent a cost-effective and ownership of the regional/global projects by efficient tool for meeting Convention the participating countries. requirements. While several countries had the option of developing websites, only a few 83. In addition, countries also felt that they projects have made provisions to accomplish were penalized for their participation in this. Furthermore, most of the sites that were regional/global projects. These countries often designed contain little useful information and experienced a dramatic drop in the budget are not regularly maintained or enhanced. In allocation for their national enabling activity fact, most sites were suspended at the end of project as soon as it was made clear that they the enabling activity project. In addition, enabling had previously participated in a regional/global activity projects have rarely utilized the media project. This situation has led to countries for information dissemination and public having a certain aversion to participating in a awareness. regional/global project. I Implementation of Regional/Global O RECOMMENDATIONS Climate Change Enabling Activities 84. In order to enhance and sustain the 80. In addition to the national enabling institutional arrangements of the enabling activity projects, 10 regional/global enabling activity projects, and to ensure an appropriate activity projects were initiated by the GEF. integration of climate change concerns into Thoughtheystartedalmostfromscratch,these planning activities, a number of major projects have achieved satisfactory results, recommendations can be made: particularly in relation to the four main focus areas: (i) building capacities; (ii) enhancing * Secure strong involvement (not simply an information exchange; (iii) establishing and endorsement) at the highest ministerial maintaining networks; and (iv) building public and political level. awareness. 0 Emphasize public-awareness activities in 81. However, the regional/global projects also enabling activity projects directed towards had some major weaknesses in terms of their decision and policy makers. Appropriate country-drivenness, which negatively affected materials should be specifically developed the ownership of project results. In general, the by the enabling activity projects for this global projects did not involve the recipient purposes. countries in the decision making process during project design and implementation, and the . Encourage the establishment of climate management approach of the regional projects change departments or centers to ensure lacked 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 Change meeting international commitments or regional Committees by providing them with offi- concerns, at the expense of national priorities. cial recognition and entrusting them with In some cases, the regional/global projects broad climate change-related responsibili- ties. 14 Summary and Recommendations 85. The review also recommends that the activities. Respective roles of the national national climate change enabling activity enabling activity projects and regional/global projects improve the emphasis on NGO and ones should also be well defined. private sector participation in the steering committees and in the different project 90. The review recommends that enabling activities, with a particular emphasis on activity projects give better support to the awareness raising. In addition, linkages development of websites by granting the betweenprojectsshouldbedevelopedinamore necessary resources for (i) the development of systematic manner. sites; (ii) the enhancement of sites by including all climate change-related information; and 86. Most countries view the creation of a (iii) the regular updating of information national database as essential to maintaining contained in these sites. capacity and ensuring the continuity of the preparation of the national communication. In 91. In order to strengthen public awareness, that respect, the review recommends that the review also recommends that enabling enabling activity projects provide for a well activity projects give a more active role to established institutional framework with journalists in the different workshops and appropriate 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 and and activity data, and establish an effective ownership, the projects should concretely process for enhancing experience sharing involve the recipient countries in the decision among regions. making and management processes. In addition, priority should be given to the use of 88. It is also recommended that the GEF national and regional consultants, or to allocate more significant resources to assisting systematically associate intemational, regional countries in undertaking national climate and national consultants. change impact assessments, and to designing relevant adaptation responses. With respect to 93. There is an inherent risk of harmful follow-up actions, it is recommended that the competition between national enabling activity GEF and its Implementing Agencies establish projects and regional/global projects. In order a closer dialogue process with the countries in to strengthen the synergies and order to identify their expectations and prepare complementarity between these two types of the appropriate framework towards responding projects, the review finds it necessary to better to 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 information strategic and long-term approach for enabling exchange and network support, capacity activities should be established by GEF in the building and training, development of future. In that respect, it is recommended that methodologies, etc. The national projects, in the COP provide clear guidance on the scope tum, could focus on the preparation of national of 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 tothe funding d agreed 11 cs (or greed ful. ACTIVITIES incremental coits, as appropriate} hnurred by deveoig: 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 by Headquarters, New York on May 9, 1992; it a e i inciubing was open for signature at the Earth Summit in institufIa- strengUieningtrainig, resea Rio 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, of New 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 force on March 21, 1994. the GEF to give priority to the support of 95. Article 21 of the Convention, "Interim national communications referred to in Arrangements," entrusted the operation of the Article 12.1 of the Convention (Box 1).28 financial mechanism, referred to in Article 11 COP 1 also requested "the subsidiary bodies to of the Convention, to the Global Environment develop for consideration by the Conference Facility (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 the Session (COP1) held in Berlin during March- preparation of national communications." April 1995 decided "that the restructured GEF shall continue, on an interim basis, to be the 96. The Conference of the Parties, at its intemational entity entrusted with the operation Second Session (COP2) in July 1996, adopted of the financial mechanism... "27 In providing detailed guidelines for the content of the first guidance 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 mechanism on an interim basis, Article 21, para.3 of the Convention said that "the Global Environment Facility should be appropriately restructured 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 Berlin from 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 its First Session. 17 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects Box2:GUiANE T TE GEF FROM COP2 - DEioSIoN 1/CR2 Para1(a) In tie initial period implement strategies on enabling activities in accordance with decision iIIOPi, 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 thdbursementof financa a es tomeet the agreedfullcosts incurred by the deeloping countryParies ine t tisplyin 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 i In tisregard,the guidelines and foormatadopted by the conferenc ofh Partiescatitsy" ( seod esono Tepeprtino ittSnitalaioa communications by non-Annex I Parties co-Viid00 tained 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 t co 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 for reiterated the necessity of meeting thell1 /CP.lI preparing initial and subsequent national requirements and confirmed that these communications "by maintaining and guidelines 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 I Annex 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 i accodane 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>0 wich *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 subsequent natio: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 and process 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 set Box 4: GUIDANCE To THE GEF FROM COP out criteria for enabling activities related to 4-DEclSION 121CP4 national communications.30 The Operational Criteria for Enabling Activities: Climate Para 1(d) To ensure that issues and concems Change contained six annexes.31 Since the identified by non-Annex I Parties in their initial guidelines for national communications by non- communications are brought to the attention of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and, Annex I Parties were still under development through it, as appropriate, its Implementing by the COP, the criteria were proposed on an Agencies, when undertaking the comprehensive interim basis, and based broadly on the review of enabling activities projects. requirements of Article 12.1, "taking into account the common, but differentiated responsibilities of countries."32 The intention was 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 accessing 98. 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 an expedited approval process within the GEF 101. The Operational Criteria was developed with approval delegated to the GEF Chairman/ by the GEF Secretariat, in consultation with CEO. It should be noted that even while the the three Implementing Agencies and the criteria were being developed, the GEF UNFCCC Secretariat. In developing the approved enabling activities for Jordan Criteria, the GEF looked for guidance to past (October 1995), Uruguay (November 1995), experience with the design of earlier enabling Armenia (December 1995), Argentina (January activities, such as the U.S. Country Studies 1996), and Egypt (April 1996), following the Program and similar efforts supported by other procedures of the GEF project cycle. donors. 99. The Criteria was developed in 102. The process of responding to the COP conjunction with the Implementing Agencies guidance involved the GEF Secretariat, the and the UNFCCC Secretariat. It was presented three Implementing Agencies and the UNFCCC as 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 be prepared 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 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects prepared by the GEF Secretariat and circulated first step in an evolving process of capacity to the other agencies for comments. After a enhancement for countries to meet their number of rounds of comments, the GEF obligations under the Convention.35 Secretariat issued the final version of the Criteria, andtransmitted itto the GEF Council 104. Following the COP2 issuance of for approval. It should be noted that no direct guidelines for the preparation of initial consultations with the countries were communication by non-Annex I Parties in undertaken when adopting these guidelines. February 1997, the GEF issued new The review also received mixed feedback Operational Guidelines for Expedited regarding incorporation ofthe views of the GEF Financing of Initial Communications from partners34 by the GEF Secretariat into the final iVon-Annex I Parties. The Operational version of the Criteria. Guidelines contained six explanatory Annexes.36 103. One of the major issues of debate during the development of the Operational Criteria 105. The major improvement in the 1997 was the extent of capacity building that should guidelines was that the activity matrix and the be supported under enabling activity projects. cost norms were now very clearly tied to the One view was that capacity building was guidelines for national communications needed only to the extent required to prepare approved by COP2.37 the initial national communications, while the countervailing view was that capacity building 106. In response to guidance from COP4, the should be established to help countries move GEF decided that a medium to long term action beyond the initial communications and gear up plan should be developed to meet the capacity for developing policies and strategies required building needs of the countries, beyond the to deal with climate change. In the end, a priority of the preparation of the initial national compromise was reached, whereby capacity communication. In May 1999, the GEF building under the initial communications was Council approved a "Capacity Development interpreted as not just the minimum required Initiative" (CDI)38 aimed at developing such for 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 to have 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 Paper GEF/C/13/9, May 5-9, 1999. 20 COP Guidance and GEF Responses 107. The GEF Council also approved be supported through enabling activities were Operational Guidelines for Expedited of critical importance and took considerable Procedures- PartII 39 in October 1999, which time before final resolution. While the aimed at supporting interim measures for US$350,000 ceiling may appear ad-hoc, the capacity building in priority areas of non- precedence established through the same Annex I countries, as identified by Decision ceiling for PDF-B for delegated CEO approval 2/CP.4. As a result, eligible countries may seek seems to have paved the way for the GEF up to US$100,000 of GEF funding support for Council to approve the Criteria with a great that purpose. Each country may flexibly deal of comfort. allocate the requested amount to the following activities, according to its preferences: 109. The Operational Criteria issued in 1996 (i) Identification/submission of technology was based broadly on the requirements of needs; (ii) Capacity building for participation Article 12.1 of the Convention. This was a in 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 COP2 capacities to prepare national commnunications; adopted detailed guidelines for initial (v) Developing/strengthening/improving communications in July 1996, the GEF issued national activities for public awareness and the revised Operational Guidelines for education, 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 activity one year. While the elapsed time seems long, projects was not very clearly defined, partly it should be kept in mind that developing reflecting the early debates and attempts at expedited procedures was a novel experience compromise during the development of the for the GEF. In addition, the operationalization criteria and guidelines. It was more than the of 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 of number of issues at once, leaving room for sustainable capacity building for handling divergent interpretations.40 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 Financing for (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 of precision might have paved the way for divergent interpretations. For instance, para (ii), (iii), (iv) might be interpreted as priorities 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 'Which should, 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 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects identified as the main objective of enabling initial communication. The final project and activity projects, particularly those implemented budget will be based on a discussion between under expeditedprocedures, the GEF guidelines the recipient country and the GEF adequately responded to the COP guidance, implementing agency. However, the ambiguity particularly with regards to the content of the of these new guidelines may lead to major national communication. In fact, the guidelines misinterpretation by non-Annex I Parties, as represent 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 for decisions and, at the same time, allow the accessing to this fund could be made more countries to meet their reporting commitments explicit, including: under the UNFCCC. Thus, despite some uncertainty regarding the primary role of . Is the eligibility for this top-up funding enabling activities, the GEF response to COPI conditioned by the completion of the and COP2 guidance, on the whole, is judged initial national communication? to have been pragmatic and timely. . What about the eligibility of the countries 111. 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 this delay, through misleading linkages with the . What is the exact meaning of paragraph initial national communication as a basis to 11 regarding the funding limits? identify country needs, and reference to expected new guidelines for subsequent . Are countries allowed to allocate the full national communications to be vaguely budget to a single item? provided later on by the COP. As an interim mechanism, the GEF established these 113. Several countries expressed concerns guidelines to respond to the short-term needs about the operationalization ofthese guidelines. of the countries until appropriate As of July 2000, 26 project proposals were recommendations emerge from the CDI 42 and received by the GEF Secretariat, and 22 were new guidelines for the subsequent national approved by CEO. communications for non-Annex I Parties are agreed 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 review guidelines were a pragmatic response to the directed the review team to take into account COP guidance. "Views expressed by the Parties through the Convention Process." This review has done 112. The new guidelines provide much more that based on documents received from the flexibility for countries to use funds allocated Parties through the UNFCCC Secretariat.43 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 could be 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 COP Guidance and GEF Responses 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 national communications before the adoption of revised 116. In response, during May 2000, the GEF guidelines for national communications, and Council approved an approach employing the wish to start the preparation of their second procedure and operational criteria used for the national communications before the seventh initial communications,45 but with some session 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 the Global Environment Facility (GEF) shall country chooses, on the basis of decision 2/CP.4 provide funding for the preparation of the to be reflected in a new activity matrix; and second national communications of such (ii) absence of prescribed cost-ranges for line Parties, following the guidance to the GEF set items. As in the case of the CDI, an assessment out in decisions 11/CP 2 and 2/CP 4, and that of the response to COP5 guidance is beyond such 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 GEF Secretariat and the Implementing Agencies. OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES For instance, several recipient countries expressed 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 and activities, the GEF guidelines reveal a special improvement of the studies that were carried emphasis on activities that relate directly to the out previously; and (iii) launching of additional preparation of the initial communication. There studies related to climate change aspects, in was a particular effort to avoid duplication and particular those addressing data collection to seek complementarity with activities process, as well as vulnerability and adaptation. previously undertaken by other initiatives, such as GEF regional/global projects or projects 120. It should be also stressed that during the financed by other donors.46 early learning phase, none of the key players (GEF Secretariat, Implementing Agencies and 118. Initially, there were conflicting the countries themselves), had a precise idea interpretations of the GEF Guidelines between of specific country needs related to the national the Implementing Agencies and the GEF communications and of the most appropriate Secretariat, particularly in relation to issues that ways to meet these through GEF funding. It is affect the level of funding, such as the level of only with the benefit of hindsight that the GEF support to be provided to capacity building and Secretariat and Implementing Agencies have to activities that received parallel support from become more aware of the specific country GEF or other donors. Eventually, however, a needs. On their part, the countries now common ground was established, particularly demonstrate better understanding and with respect to the rapid preparation ofthe initial appreciation of the parameters associated with communications. Since climate change enabling GEF financing of enabling activities. activities deal with complex technical issues, the UNDP country offices, which were at the APPLICABILITY AND forefront of dealing with the countries, had to seek advice and guidance from UNDP HQ in FLEXIBILITY TO THE interpreting the guidelines. This led, in some COUNTRIES' cases, to long negotiations between the NEEDS countries, the UNDP and the GEF Secretariat which 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 activities always 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 and knowledge" in Operational Guidelines for Expedited Procedures, 1997. 47 Refer to Annex C of Operational Guidelines for Expedited Procedures, 1997. 25 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects communications previously carried out in the help in a more consistent application of the country. GEFsupportthroughenablingactivity guidelines and cost norms among the projects 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 GEF might be relevant to national communications Secretariat improve the consultative process for was not an issue for the completion of the the formulation of the next GEF guidelines for activity matrix, the review finds that enabling activity projects. This process should Operational Guidelines placed a strong allow for a more equitable role for the presumption on the success of these previous Implementing Agencies in the finalization of enabling activity initiatives, despite not having the guidelines and a more collaborative spirit any objective assessment of these efforts. between them. In addition, the process of preparing the guidelines should better take the 122. The real content and quality of the products countries' needs and interests into account and generated by these previous initiatives could not not only lay emphasis on their obligations.48 In be appropriately and objectively assessed during this context, it is suggested that the GEF partners the project design phase. In practice, countries explore adequate ways and means for involving found it difficult to justify their needs to a group of technical experts from the recipient undertake 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 EXPEDITED enabling activity projects rather quickly, they were generally forced to accept the rules PROCEDURES ON PROJECT imposed by this matrix. PROCESSI NG 123. The level of funding was the most frequently debated issue during project 125. Theoretically, countries could, if they negotiations between the GEF Secretariat, the wished, request more than US$ 350,000 of GEF Implementing Agencies and the countries. support for enabling activity projects following Differences in interpretation among the key the full project cycle procedure of the GEF. players and some degree of competition While 14 countries had already obtained between the two Implementing Agencies led funding for enabling activity projects under to prolonged negotiations on certain projects. normal procedures before the new guidelines The emphasis on the level of funding rather for expedited procedures were issued in than on technical matters has sometimes February 1997, no single enabling activity harmed the spirit of enabling activity portfolio project has been developed under the normal development. Consequently, the review finds procedures of the GEF project cycle since that that greater precision in COP guidance and GEF date. The disadvantage of this route compared guidelines could go a long way towards to expedited procedures is that, because of the removing ambiguities associated with the funding level, it requires GEF Council definition 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 thedevelopment of 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 Implementing between receipt of the project proposal at the Agency to the date of project start in the GEF Secretariat to the first disbursement. country) for projects under expedited procedures. Figure 1 depicts the average 126. The logic behind introducing the expedited elapsed time on a yearly basis. During the procedures for enabling activities was to develop period 1995-1998, there was a significant a system whereby the GEF Council delegated decrease (60%) in the amount of time taken to approval authority for projects to the GEF CEO, process a project-from an average of 499 days provided the GEF funding requested was less in 1995 to an average of 188 days in 1998. The than US$350,000 and the project design was decrease of the elapsed time mostly occurred according to guidelines/criteria acceptable to the in the early stages (i.e. 35 % occurred during Council. The overall objective was to reduce the period 1995-1996), with the initial project 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 modest obligations under the Convention. However, it (16%), while in 1998, a considerable effort was should 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 at the GEF Secretariat to the approval by the GEF 128. Despite the significant decrease in CEO, 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 processing 127. 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 to the date of project start in the country. The chart was prepared using a total sample of 72 projects in the portfolio for whidi the relevant dates were available. 27 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects 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 processing 129. In order to identify bottlenecks in the cycle over the past five years. However, the processing cycle for expedited projects, an elapsed time for project processing by UNDP analysis was also conducted of the elapsed should be shortened even further in order to times between major milestones in the enabling expedite implementation .54 But any future activity projects cycle. The analysis reviewed reduction in processing time needs to be the whole period from 1995-98.49 In this weighed carefully in light of the sample, about 77% of the time spent between recommendations for broader stakeholder the first and third milestones of the project consultation. cycle50 was spent in processing within the Implementing Agency. It is in these three 131. Given the quick evolution of the climate milestones that the most significant decrease change process, and the evolving needs of the in total elapsed time has been made over time.5' countries, the challenge for future GEF On the other hand, the fourth and the fifth enabling activity initiatives is to react rapidly milestones represent 37% of the project to changing circumstances. Therefore, processing for the whole period 1995-98, and additional efforts are required by the GEF to these are where no improvements at all were further streamline this processing. Also, the made across the years,52 and thus where there countries should facilitate the process of are still important opportunities for future stakeholder consultations, negotiations with the improvement. Implementing Agencies, signature and project approval, and remove the administrative 130. Overall, this review finds that the elapsed barriers that significantly hamper project time 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, while because of a lack of data (or reliable data) for the different stages of project processing, the analysis conducted in this paragraph and the following ones are based on a smaller sample size of 43 projects. However, the structure of the two samples across the agencies and across the years is almost similar. Also the years 1996 and 1997 represent 79% of the population 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) project start 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 and specify financial and implementation arrangements among project partners. 53 For UNDP, for instance, several reasons explain delays affecting project starting, including rigidity of the modalities for the recruitment of consultants as well as for the approval modalities of quarterly financial reports and budget advances requests, etc. In addition, UNDP argues that their concerns for financial accountability and control explains the delay in this stage 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 budget plan 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 process GEF made a decision to proceed with an through which the Parties were informed of the immediate 15% disbursement to the enabling Guidelines and hard copies of the documents were distributed. In addition, the Implementing activity project once approved by the GEF Agencies systematically transmitted the CEO. However, it should be noted that this Operation alGlnesy tharticp atin decision could not be implemented because the countries as soon as they began consultations rules 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.55 135. However, the review finds that th Operational Guidelines transmitted to the GEF 133. While some countries have complained focal points were not disseminated within of disbursement delays, the review found that countries, and the project design largely these occurred in only a few instances and involved the concerned implementing agency rarely affected project implementation.56 and often a single national representative. Rather, more significant implementation delays Consequenty stnehle pationaduring have been caused by issues such as Consequently, stakeholder participation dunng development of the budget and work plan, project design was very limited, and often identification of consultants, and establishment prevented a more effective inclusion of sectoral ofienstifitionalfcoransultnts,anesablshen concems into project proposals. In practice, of institutional arrangements. the urgency to prepare proposals prevented both the Implementing Agencies and their national DISSEMINATION OF counterparts from establishing a consultative process within countries during project OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES preparation. 134. This review finds that most country representatives could access and were familiar 55 The project document represents a type of contract between the country and the implementing agency, and it defines the 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 budgets as 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 initial communications. CHANGE ENABLING ACTIVITIES PORTFOLIO 138. As of May 31, 2000, the GEE had ACTIVITIES PORTFOLIO approved climate change enabling activity projects in 132 countries totaling about US$72 136. The GEE Operational Strategy describes million, of which: enabling activities as broad capacity building for non-Annex I countries: "enabling activities (a) The largest amount of money-US$36 -which include inventories, compilation of million (50% of the portfolio)-was information, policy analysis, and strategies and approved through 10 regional/global action plans-represent a basic building block proj ects; of GEF assistance to countries. They either are a means of fulfilling essential (b) 100 projects amounting to a total of communications requirements to a Convention, US$25 million (35% ofthe portfolio) were provide a basic and essential level of approved following the Operational information to enable policy and strategic Criteria and expedited procedures; and decisions to be made, or assist planning that identifies priority activities within a country. (c) About US$11 million (15% of the Countries thus enabled will have the ability to portfolio) was allocated to 15 projects, formulate and direct sectoral and economy- approved following full project wide programs to address global environmental procedures.58 problems through a cost-effective approach within the context of national sustainable Table 1 depicts a synthesized overview of the development efforts."57 GEF climate change enabling activity portfolio. 137. The GEF focus on capacity building has 139. UNDP implements the vast majority of existed since the earliest days of the pilot phase. the enabling activity projects-two-thirds of Many enabling activity projects, though not the portfolio in terms of the share of funds directed explicitly towards the development of approved. UNEP comes a far second with about initial communications to the UJNFCCC, were one-fifth of the portfolio; the World Bank approved during the pilot phase. Several accounts for just 12% of the portfolio. UNDP regional/global projects and full projects fall also dominates the portfolio in the different under this category. Following explicit modalities that were employed to support guidance from COPI and COP2, the GEF enabling activities. In that respect, UNDP developed 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 expedited procedures or exceeded US$350,000 in funding request. 31 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects TABLE 1. GEF PORTFOLIO OF CLIMATE CHANGE ENABLING ACTIVITIES -X X 09' M' W al Projects approved under expedited r 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 3 125 rojects ____________ (a) More than half of the regional/global BUDGET FOR projects portfolio; ADMINISTRATION COSTS (b) Three-fourths of the funding allocated to expedited 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 in Table 2. Information on amounts provided FIG. 2: SHARE OF GEF-FUNDED CLIMATE CHANGE ENABLING ACTIVITY PROJECTS AMONG THE IMPLEMENTINGAGENCIES (°O) The Wodd In terms of funding share In terms of the number of projects Bank T~~~Ihe WoldB k 12%6 ~> 2% J 6NE: 20%% 66% UNDP 22t/o 678% 32 Portfolio Overview TABLE 2. ESTIMATED BUDGET SUPPORT TO THE IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ENABLING ACTIVITIES - EXPEDiTED PROCEDURES Wfldw .UNOP L.v~ . .. 1 GEF Corporate Budget $12,877 $758,705 $157,606 $929,188 AgerwY Fees 14 3Totaf 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 enabling activity projects, this table presents only estimated figures. The estimates were made using a staff-week costing and some partial numbers of staff-week that are projected to be allocated to climate change enabling activity projects, as estimated by the Implementing Agencies (refer to the footnote in the previous page). It should be noted that the estimates are a lower bound estimate, 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 the effective support that is provided to the Implementing Agencies for the enabling activity projects, some consideration should be given to the resources provided to UNOP through the NCSP. UNEP, on the other hand, does not receive any agency fee from NCSP. through the GEF Corporate budget was through the Corporate Budget for climate provided by the GEF Secretariat and the change enabling activities. Climate enabling Implementing Agencies, while the fees charged activities, particularly those approved through on a per project basis was supplied by the expedited procedures, entered the GEF Implementing Agencies. The former amounts portfolio in fiscal year 1996. The GEF did not are provided to the Implementing Agencies follow full activity based budgeting until fiscal directly from GEF Corporate budget while the year 1999, when 4.6 staff weeks (costed at latter are deductedfromthecountries' enabling $5,382 per staff week) was provided per activity grants. enabling activity; there was only partial activity-based budgeting during fiscal year ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT 1998.59 These resources were provided to support the development, preparation, FOR PROJ ECT MANAG EM ENT implementation and monitoring and evaluation of enabling activities, including hiring regional FROM THE CORPORATE coordinators and consultants (not consultants BUDGET within countries, however, which were funded from the enabling activity grants). The estimates for GEF Corporate budget resources 141. 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 project processing; UNEP estimated 2 staffweeks for the same activity; there are no coefficients for the World Bank implemented enablingactivities. 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) in fiscal years 1998 and 1999 respectively. This involves support to development and monitoring of 125 projects in FY98 and 165 projects in FY99. 33 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects bound estimate, as no activity based resource is provided to UNDP field offices if they provisions could be estimated from the FY96 are asked to assist in the implementation and 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 to under national execution, up to 3% is provide relevant technical and supervision charged by the UNDP country offices for support.62 The GEF seems to have recognized support/procurement services where this weakness. Under the new fee-based requested.60 system, the Implementing Agencies receive US$54,000 per enabling activity project * UNEP charges 8% per enabling activity towards administrative expenses covering the for 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 change enabling activity projects were executed by UJNOPS. 61 According to a United Nations General Assembly decision, UNEP charges 13% overhead on non-GEF projects that it implements. 62 Negotiations for a fee to the administrative budget of the Implementing Agencies for the up to $100,000 top-up for enabling 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,63 was period, the Operational Guidelines rapidly generally applied by the Implementing became 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 the proposals. Enabling activity projects generally guidelines as a basis for determining the met the objectives set forth in the Operational activities to be included in the enabling activity Guidelines, 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, in national 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 activities related to climate change in the country * Vulnerability assessments, policy options when determining the level of GEF sor monitoring systems, and response support under enabling activity projects; strategies; (c) While the cost norms, in general, . Policy options to address GHG abatement adequately covered the activities strategies; necessary for preparing initial communications, they provided little * Policy frameworks for implementing flexibility; adaptation and abatement measures and response strategies; (d) Given the limitations of funding and the project 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 in these operational guidelines." 64 In that respect, the design of enabling activity projects correctly responded to the COP guidance, which focused on providing priority support for the preparation of the initial national communication. However, the COP guidance also mentioned "....and other relevant commitments under the Convention," but this seems to have been omitted by the GEF Guidelines. 35 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects * Efforts related to sustainable is obviously a necessary, but not a sufficient, development, research, raising public indication of country drivenness. A more awareness, 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 enhance financial 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 good GHG emission trends, financial and practice of "Building Upon Existing Activities technological needs and constraints and Knowledge" through the use ofthe activity associated with the communication of matrix as "the basic building blocks of the information, etc.). enabling activity."66 The purpose of this matrix is to identify and assess any relevant activities 146. The third principle relates to the review that the GEF and/or other funding bodies had of project proposals, which was to be made by previously supported, using information the GEF Secretariat, the Implementing available from the CC:INFO data base,67 with Agencies and the UNFCCC Secretariat.65 the assumption that "these previous or ongoing These reviews were supposed to ensure that a enabling activities would have succeeded in number of good practices were followed, providing sufficient capacity in the category including (i) Country drivenness; (ii) Use of they deal with." The role of the enabling established guidelines; (iii) Complementarities activities would then be to support with existing activities; (iv) Appropriate complementary activities which would support sequencing of activities towards preparing the preparation of the initial national initial communications; (v) Efficiency in the communication. This rule was effectively use of financial resources, with GEF financing applied by the Implementing Agencies and the for the agreed full cost being available for any GEF Secretariat, as recommended by the GEF eligible enabling activity; and (vi) Use of local guidelines. However, the assumption that these and regional experts, wherever available and previous/ongoing enabling activities were whenever possible. successful might have been somewhat misplaced. Many of these efforts were not fully 147. There is room for improvement in the assessed and were rarely based on objective application of some of these good practices. criteria such as the quality of technical outputs, For example, the country drivenness criteria level of national participation, country simply consisted of asking the recipient country drivenness, sustainability of capacity building, to endorse the project by transmitting a letter institutional arrangements, endorsement of the of 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 project proposals. 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 design practice of "Efficiency in Use of Resources" phase of the enabling activity projects, the under which the GEF is expected to deliver trade-off was that it left little initiative to the support in an efficient manner. Annex D in the countries to develop project proposals that Operational Guidelines contains a table would better conform to their particular needs. highlighting "Typical cost ranges for expedited However, the review finds that this particular processing of Initial National Communications trade-off placed undue emphasis on the proposals," which was generally used with the obligations of the countries (i.e. preparation of activity matrix during project design to define the national communication, minimization of the funding allocated to each activity. In most the project's duration), at the expense of the cases, this principle was applied rigorously by country's own needs and priorities. the Implementing Agencies and the GEF Secretariat. While the cost norns, in general, 151. The enabling activity projects also adequately covered the activities necessary for focused on achieving other ambitious preparation ofthe national communications, the objectives, including sustainability of norms also presented the countries with afait capacities, establishment of information accompli, providing little flexibility and no collection and updating systems for GHG fungibility of funds. There is also a question as inventories, sustainability of institutional to whether these reference tables truly address arrangements, and integration of climate the countries' expectations and priorities, and change concerns into national development to 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 been results. 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 capacities 150. The operationalization of these five at the beginning of the process,70 this review principles has worked well, with few finds that the enabling activity projects had exceptions. In practice, the Implementing unrealistic expectations when setting such Agencies have simply transmitted a copy of the objectives. Operational Guidelines to the national GEF operational 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 in by another country that already went through making adjustments to their initial budgetary the initial steps of project formulation and allotments. In fact, the Implementing Agencies approval. The project design often skipped the usually approved requests for budget revisions project brief step, which was supposed to made by the countries, provided that identify country needs, and jumped directly to Implementing Agencies were consulted and the formulation of project proposals.69 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 of simplification, 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 of other priority tasks. 37 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects revisions fit into the project objectives and consultations should be encouraged and take scope. In practice, project coordinators have time, a long period of project processing may requested 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 document original budget that was defined by the project initially defined may not be relevant for the documents." While most coordinators might country when finally implemented. In addition, have appreciated additional flexibility and the countries as well as the GEF may have new possible fungibility between budget lines, they COP guidance to address. Refer to Chapter were willing to implement the project within III for a detailed analysis of project processing the constraints of the budget initially elapsed times. approved.72 155. While each of the main players 153. To summarize, the review recommends (Implementing Agencies, GEF Secretariat, the that: (i) a more balanced approach, with countries) are partly responsible for the appropriate stakeholder participation and excessive elapsed time during different stages consultation and an assessment of national of project design and processing, some ofthese priorities be part of the "country drivenness" delays can be attributed to a necessary learning of project proposals; (ii) a fuller assessment of period in the implementation of COP guidance the quality of climate change related activities -compounded by a lack of clarity in COP previously undertaken be factored into the guidance-and different interpretations of the context when finalizing the level of GEF GEF guidelines. In addition to the time elapsed support; (iii) more flexibility is provided in the for processing the projects, a lack of easily use of agreed resources within the project accessible information regarding the progress context; 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 the objectives and expectations, given the available project document, considerably limited the funding and time horizon. ability of the partners to identify and adequately address the bottlenecks. EFFICIENCY OF THE PROJECT 156. In order to improve the efficiency of the DESIGN CYCLE enabling activity projects, it is essential to significantly reduce the length of the project 154. Based on the statistics provided by UNDP design phase. The major milestones of the and UNEP, the review finds that the total project design process should be made more elapsed time from the first receipt of the project transparent, mainly through a better sharing of proposal at the Implementing Agency-GEF unit information on the progress within the design to the date of project start is still too long, despite cycle, so that the main partners involved can the implementation ofexpeditedprocedures: 188 follow the process closely and intervene to working days in 1998. While recognizing that break unnecessary deadlocks if needed. For a 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 project implementation. 38 Design and Implementation established, and distributed to all the relevant 159. In addition, the preparatory work during staffwithin the GEF Secretariat, Implementing this step consists in nominating or recruiting a Agencies and the countries, highlighting the project coordinator, selecting an appropriate different steps of the processing cycle team, building the relevant institutional combined with regular updates on project arrangement for the project, identifying status, as well as a project timeline and the consultants as well as stakeholder names and contact information for the representatives, organizing workshops, etc. individuals responsible for each particular step. This was quite difficult to carry out and This would allow all the parties concemed to demanded, in any case, several months to be clearly identify the bottlenecks at each step and fully achieved. Moreover, the project define good practice guidance allowing the coordinators often found it difficult to acceleration of the process. While this familiarize themselves with the management additional transparency of the project cycle rules of the Implementing Agencies and prepare might require more resources, it is a critical budgets and work plans in accordance with issue, and the review recommends that the GEF these rules in a timely manner. explore adequate ways of providing any required 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 resort extensively to consultants, usually from the national level. In some countries, however, the 157.cTeptions, r counotres tha with few relevant specialized experts were often either exceptions, most countries experienced no-xsetathntialevlruaalbe difficulties in completing their enabling activity non-exstent at the nac onal level or unavanlable projects within the timeframe defined in the project documents. Realizing this, the Implementing Agencies have, in many cases, 161. During the implementation stage, there extended 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 be that the expected duration was, from the undertaken. There was also no systematic beginning, unrealistic. Several factors explain proces s also no remats the longer time horizon needed for the process for reviewing technical reports theplongatime hof projects. prepared by enabling activity projects. Though implementation of projects. this affected the quality of the products, little remedial action could be undertaken given the 158. For a number of reasons, the early bde n iecntans implementation period (from signing of the project document to first disbursement) was 162. In many cases, the time needed to one of the most difficult to implement. First, complete particular studies was policy and institutional processes related to underestimated, particularly for more technical climate change are relatively novel in most and/or crosscutting aspects, such as baseline developing countries, where development and scuttio aspent as bility concems more immediately associated with and scenario development and vulnerability poverty alleviation continue to be of greater assessment. Many countries placed an pioerity. alleviatond ctine a o r res of greatr emphasis on building national capacity, even priority. Second, it also requires a broad though it could result in significant project participatory approach, involving various delays. Occasionally, however, and despite the stakeholders with different motivations and budget limitations, a few projects resorted to generally little experience in information intemational consultants in order to meet the exchange and inter-departmental consultation. schedule. 39 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects 163. The review and validation of technical that the level of funding support has been outputs, including the initial national sufficient for the preparation of the national communication, generally requires a broad communication, and of the basic documents. consultation process among stakeholders. However, objectives linked to the sustainability There is an inherenttradeoff, however, between of capacity building and of institutional the benefits of broad involvement and the time arrangements, as well as to the integration of commitment such a consultation requires. climate change concerns into national Broad coordination and support, particularly development policies, were unrealistic given on policy issues, was needed to bring the the timeframe and the funding levels. national communication together in a meaningful and consistent manner. Moreover, 166. Considering the major weaknesses the political nature of the validation and encountered in the enabling activity projects, approval of the national communication the COP placed an emphasis on additional necessitated a much longer delay, with fundingsupportneededbynon-AnnexIParties significant implications for the overall project in order to maintain and enhance relevant duration. In that respect, the enabling activity national capacities for the preparation of the expectations 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 further 164. It is clear that such problems are not likely address priority concems with GEF assistance to occur in the future, since the enabling activity through the provision of funding support up to process is now well-understood by the US$100,000 for complementary activities." countries, Implementing Agencies and GEF Secretariat. However, it is recommended that 167. Once again, the guidelines related to this future enabling activity efforts include "top-up" funding are not sufficiently clear, and systematic pre-project consultation and this might lead to major misinterpretation by awarenessraisingprocessestargetingthepolicy non-Annex I Parties, as well as by the and decision-making levels prior to proceeding Implementing Agencies. Despite the fact that with the project proposals. In that respect, GEF information regarding the top-up funding was focal 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 were presented by an appropriate expert or unawareofthisnewsupportopportunity,ordid representative from the Implementing not understand the conditions under which it Agencies. is supposed to operate. 7 Fu N DING CON STRAI NTS 168. Another question is related to the financial commitment of the countries themselves in carrying out enabling activity projects. The 165. The issue of funding was already raised enabling activity projectsa The earlier in this chapter. Globally, the review finds 73 Operational GuidelinesforExpedited Financingof Climate ChangeEnablingActivities, Partl. ExpeditedFinancing for (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 Design and Implementation preparation of national communications are contribution be itemized in the same way as supposed to be financed by the GEF for the other funding sources such as the GEF so that full agreed cost incurred by the non-Annex I it is considered as a serious commitment during Parties, exempting countries from any funding project implementation. commitment. However, a number of countries had officially included in their project ROLES OF THE PARTNERS IN documents a provision for in-kind contributions such as office equipment and supplies, THE ENABLING ACTIVITY telephone, staff time, etc., which were therefore excluded from GEF support. While this is PROJECT CYCLE obviously an important sign of the commitment of these countries to contribute to the success 170. The countries, Implementing Agencies of the enabling activity project, the and the GEF Secretariat have all played effectiveness of these commitments has been essential roles in the creation and evolution of questionable 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. In encouraged their realization during the some cases, however, direct contacts between implementation of the project nor allowed country representatives and the regional the country coordinators to officially bureaus of UNDP or a UNEP representative demand this support from their respective were established during major international governments; meetings or other similar forums. * in some cases, the government did not 171. Regarding the interactions between the have the resources to meet its Implementing Agencies, the review finds that commitments; 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 consultation insufficient contributions from governments,75 among the Implementing Agencies.76 While the when compared to their original commitments, GEF structure encourages competition, the have critically affected project implementation. review notes that the guidelines were not It is recommended that when the country applied consistently among the Implementing commits itself on a voluntary basis to a Agencies. Furthermore, the competition that contribution 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 of office 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 Bank through the OAS, UNDP has recently obtained GEF approval for 11 individual enabling activity national projects for the Caribbean. In this case, the consultations between UNDP and the World Bank were very limited. Moreover, the projects were developed using a "cookie-cutter" approach, and did not benefit from the experience gained by the CPACC project. 41 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects funding and on the flexibility of the application 175. While led by the GEF Secretariat, the of the activity matrix and cost norms rather than process of responding to COP guidance also on technical matters. involved the three Implementing Agencies and the UNFCCC Secretariat. However, as stated 172. Initially, for example, the GEF Secretariat earlier in the report, the Implementing Agencies and UNDP expressed concern about the ability and the UNFCCC Secretariat felt that their of UNEP to manage a full-fledged enabling perspectives were not sufficiently taken into activity program. These concerns were based account by the GEF Secretariat when finalizing on the absence of UNEP country offices and the guidelines. limited human resources available to oversee these projects. During this review, UNEP 176. Overall, the GEF response to COP disputed 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 COP of projects, given its long standing involvement decisions tended to leave room for divergent in climate change activities and its network of interpretations; and (ii) there was pressure to national focal points, in addition to making provide financial resources to countries to start better use of telecommunication, field visits and preparing enabling activities. However, the regional offices. review finds that the interpretation and operationalization of the COP guidance, in 173. 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 in as soon as decisions are made concerning the the application of the cost benchmarks and the direction of future support for enabling activity matrix. activities. Therefore, the review recommends that the roles and collaborative practices of the 177. The GEF Secretariat was also fully Implementing Agencies in climate change involved in the development of the enabling enabling activity projects be better defined in activity portfolio. Once the request for an the future. The GEF Secretariat can contribute enabling activity project was received, the to strengthening the collaborative spirit and Implementing Agencies were responsible for helping ensure consistent application of the providing technical assistance for the guidelines across the agencies. Moreover, the development of project proposals, following GEF can contribute to stimulating synergies the GEF Operational Guidelines, and to between the projects by maintaining a transmit the project proposal to the GEF transparent and accessible information system, Secretariat. The GEF Secretariat was then and keeping track of all enabling activity responsible for verifying that the project met projects 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, meeting COP requirements to expedite the project approval process, though some rigidity in 174. The GEE Secretariat has two major roles applying the cost benchmarks and the activity in the enabling activity process. First, it has a matrix was noted. It should be acknowledged leading role in responding to COP guidance that the quick reaction of the GEF Secretariat through the developmentofguidelines. Second, was facilitated by efforts made by the it intervenes in reviewing the project proposals Implementing Agencies to faithfully adhere to and recommending them for CEO approval, the requirements of the GEF Secretariat. 42 Design and Implementation Informal consultations were also initiated by the the UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinator. Despite Implementing Agencies with the GEF some improvement over time, the review notes Secretariat prior to formal submission of thatprocessingtimeofenablingactivityprojects, project proposals, in order to clarify specific that are to supposed to be expedited, in UNDP issues and to address any potential difficulties. is still too long. While a substantial reduction in time has been achieved in upstream project 178. On the other hand, the review noted that processing, little or no progress has been made the GEF Secretariat, following its institutional in reducing project processing time in UNDP mandate, kept some distance from project following approval by the GEF CEO. implementation, and did not pay close attention to follow-up actions. A closer association with 181. Early on in the development of the enabling the enabling activity process could help the activity project portfolio (1996-1997), the GEF Secretariat respond quickly to needs increasing number of project proposals and evolving in countries, such as broader capacity demands on the UNDP New York staff made it development and investments in climate difficult for the agency to provide the level of change. direct technical assistance that was needed by the countries. UNDP 182. Overall, the needs of the recipient 179. As of May 2000, UNDP had implemented countries for technical and managerial support 179. 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 the nationalxprjecits (77jexpedited and 14xofwhich aImplementing Agencies, the GEF guidelines did regional/global projects. The average enabling not give room for more substantial support to reina/loa prjet. Th vrg nbig the countries and this prevented them from activity project budget in UNDP amounts to aoatie lee of US$244,000 for expedited and US$647,000 for allocating the level of human resources that US$244,000nfor-expedited arojects.Sinde U 0r 1would have better met the country needs. Given NDPhason- ydevelopedexpedited projects.ince6, these resource constraints, UNDP viewed its UNDP has only developed expedited projects, roeaminycsstgofaaeet the timing and scope of which were thought to role as mainly consisting of management be more appropriate for the preparation of the oversight, with any possible technical initial 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 for to obtain funding for enabling activity project the preparation of project briefs and, in some beyond 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 provided 180. To begin the project preparation process, ehia aktpigdrn mlmna countries 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 amgprodThseuld request to the relevant UNDP regional bureau in 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 the projects. In this case the UNDP contribution consisted of conducting a search for suitable candidates, preparing TORs and supervising the consultant's work to ensure smooth project implementation. 43 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects 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.80 In sum- 184. The human resource constraints of UNDP mary, this review notes that UNDP country New York became more apparent during project offices have a much large role to play during implementation.7" This was especially true project implementation and therefore recom- when the projects began launching more mends that UNDP keep exploring ways and technical studies. Participation by UNDP means to provide country offices with greater regional coordinators in technical seminars technical expertise. organized by the national projects occurred only occasionally. Moreover, UNDP's regional 186. It is important to note that the launching coordinators were not systematically able to of the National Communications Support assist in the Tripartite Reviews (TPR), despite Programme (NCSP) in 1998 has allowed the fact that the TPRs provide an important UNDP to provide more effective technical opportunity to discuss problems encountered assistance to the countries, and to contribute by the projects and to define appropriate to capacity building through strengthening of remedial actions (though technical issues are information exchanges and the interactions rarely addressed in such meetings). Hence, as between projects. In addition, this project soon as the projects were under allowed UNDP to have better knowledge ofthe implementation, UNDP turned to a more achievements and progress of its enabling managerial role, with technical assistance activity projects. More detailed information generally provided by consultants recruited about this program will be provided in the under individual projects.79 Some technical Technical Support section of this chapter. backstopping, on an ad-hoc basis, however, was provided by UNDP's regional bureaus. 187. In order to enhance its ability to support enabling activity projects and to provide 185. While the UNDP country offices also had continuous backstopping technical assistance a limited technical contribution at the outset, to its projects, UNDP decided to hire regional they were critical in ensuring general manage- consultants. In practice, this was adopted only ment oversight, including administrative sup- forWestAfrica. Whiletheexperienceismixed, port,servingasaliaisonwithUNDPNewYork, with some countries in the region still and facilitating the development and implemen- complaining of inadequate technical support, tation of the projects. Later, the UNDP coun- this review recommends that UNDP widen the try 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 the NCSP, many countries had been unable to find appropriate support to address specific technical issues. Some of the most frequently mentioned difficulties were identification of appropriate approaches and experts to address vulnerability/adaptation assessments, and identification and use of existing GHG abatement models, in particular for the forestry and agriculture sectors. 79 It should be noted that the funding resources of the national enabling activity projects did not allow for a significant contribution from international experts. 80 IThe review noted that where strong and very qualified support was provided by the UNDP country offices, the enabling activity projects were generally very successful. 44 Design and Implementation or support regional centers of excellence to frequent exchange of information between assist countries in addressing the technical UNDP Manila (Philippines) and the Asian issues associated with the implementation of Development Bank,84 which is the Executing enabling 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 New portfolio were executed by national agencies, York for comments. creating room for strong country ownership of project results. Four of the projects were 190. UNDP also played a critical role in the executed by the United Nations Office for design and implementation of the PICCAP Project Services (UNOPS). The review team project, through evaluation, review and observed that the appointment of UNOPS as provision of linkages to its other regional and an executing agency has been problematic in global initiatives. In addition, the oversight most cases,8' due to the rigidity of provided by UNDP has also helped to ensure administrative and disbursement procedures transparent and accountable project applied. This generally resulted in delays management. Unfortunately, a number of during project implementation and de- changes in UNDP accounting procedures over motivation of UNDP country offices as well as the project cycle and a series of staff changes the country representatives. It should be noted, at UNDP Apia (Samoa) may have affected the however, that UNOPS was generally contracted smoothness of the project implementation. in crisis countries or where UNDP did not have a country office. 191. While UNDP played an appropriate role in implementing regional/global projects, the 189. For global/regional projects, withjust one review is concerned about the country- exception,82 UNDP operated through different ownership of these types of projects. UNDP executing agencies.83 This approach allowed needs to explore new executing arrangements UNDP to be discharged of the daily to improve country ownership in regional or management of these projects. Despite this multi-country projects. approach, UNDP New York played a substantial role as an IA. In fact, it provided 192. This review finds that implementation direct technical, as well as managerial, inputs supervision at UNDP has room for to the projects. For instance, the ALGAS improvement. Refer to the section Assessment project was closely monitored and of Reporting and Management Procedures backstopped, and the Regional Coordinator included in the present chapter for details on attended 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 the project. 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 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects UNEP practical modalities of the project implementation, since: (i) They have direct access to the task manager at UNEP when 193. As of May 2000, UNEP had Implemented acest .. ts aae a NPwe 193~~'. Aso.a 00 JE a mlmne needed, and (ni) they generally receive a quick 25 climate change enabling activity proJeCts, of nedd n i)te eeal eev uc which22are national enabling activity expedited and effective response from UNEP on any projects andreenationalienalglatvt pedted issue that is raised. However, the review found projects andethree fnari rionacl/lal pjes little evidence to support the latter statement at Thenav 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 staff amounts 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 the with 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 in 194. Countries interested in collaborating with mitiigamntrn n aatakn UNEP must first send an official letter of systemnfor i enabling activit procts, request to UNEP headquarters in Nairobi. sse o t nbigatvt rjcs rNEques thenprocUNeP witheadqaroeteors Natirob confirming that it wants to assume its technical U NEp then proceeds with project formulation, inconsultationwiththeGEFandUNFCCfocal assistance role in addition to the usual point in the country. In general, these managerial role. Moreover, it was noted that in ' ~~~some cases, UNEP has been able to provide consultations were done by telephone, fax or te ncal comEnts and sugesto ponite email. In some cases, the UNEP task manager docu ments pd d by gtesprojs whe would 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 of of 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 always involved 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 countries proposals 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 special circumstances 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 provided Secretariat for approval. According to UNEP, an utlzdi. tmlanr countries have generally been satisfied with the modalities for formulating project documents. 199. The review finds that implementation supervision needs to be significantly 196. The modalities of UNEP intervention are based on direct contact with the national strengthened in UNEP. Refer to the section e g a s ad oy Assessment of Reporting and Management executin agnis an.ntersosblt Procedures included in the present chapter for of the project coordinators for administrative and technical management. This has allowed details on this issue. the elimination of intermediate steps. According to UNEP, the countries are satisfied with the 46 Design and Implementation 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 enabling 200.n at Wo rlBank' oeen climatec.hAn activity program to allow for a balanced enabling activity program has been limited. As dvlpeto h E otoi mn h of May 2000, its portfolio comprised three development of the GEF portfolio among the projects: two national projects and one regional Implementing Agencies. project." Though small in number, the World 203. The second factor relates to the perception Bank portfolio amounted to US$8.6 million, of the Bank staff about the climate change about 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. Engaging when it was launched, have provided useful governments on a narrowly focused issue, some insights about the factors that could have staff felt, would detract from the Bank's possibly influenced the Bank's decision to limit ongoing dialogue on energy policy reform and its 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 the Bank 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 have allocated 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 budgets involvement wasthefallocation ofGEFlrelated allocated for the climate change enabling tasks among the Implementing Agencies. activity projects, particularly in view of their Though not formally articulated, it was focus on capacity building, training and assumed that this would be based on the outreach activities. Such activities, by theirvery comparative advantage of each agency. As nature, are resource intensive. capacity building, training and outreach were 205. In retrospect, perceptions about the scope an integral part of the climate change enabling and cost-effectiveness of climate change activity projects, there was a prima facie case enabling activity projects, may well have been for 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 outreach except 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 the also 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 activity projects was significant. 47 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects 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, these projects have achieved satisfactory results, in Effectiveness of regional/global particular in relation to the four main focus GEF enabling activity projects areas identified above. Though they started and 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 of information 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 the aimed at enhancing country capacities in role played by developing country achieving 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-effective than a strictly national effort. The projects were 209. In some cases, the regional/global projects intended to complement national enabling significantly involved and strengthened activity 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 the national communications; (ii) enhancing international NGO ENDA (Senegal) to provide information exchange; (iii) establishing and technical assistance to the four countries maintaining networks; and (iv) building public involved in the project. CC:TRAIN I worked awareness. 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 strong were of direct relevance to the national participation of experts from developing communication, 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 and Country Case Studies on Climate Change global projects have also made important Impacts andAdaptationAssessments, CPACC, contributions to the development of PICCAP, etc.), and GHG abatement (e.g. methodologies (e.g. UNEP Country Case ALGAS). 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 the case 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 Design and Implementation 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 react projects and facilitated their design and easily to changing needs and circumstances. implementation. For instance, the review finds Specifically, a shift in resource allocation that the preparation of project proposals was towards individual countries would have been much 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 ownership national GEF focal points, as well as the of the regional/global projects by the primary stakeholders, were generally quite participating countries. For example, although familiar with the enabling activity process. In the quality of the studies undertaken by the addition, a reliable core ofnational experts had regional/global projects was generally rated already been established. very satisfactory, the countries often did not endorse the results, particularly in cases where 212. Despite these undeniable contributions, the studies were undertaken away from official the 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 generally global projects did not involve the recipient benefited greatly from their participation in countries in the decision making process during regional/global projects in terms of capacity project design and implementation, and the building, exchange of information and management approach of the regional projects experience, public awareness, improvements in lacked broad participation and information their negotiating capacities in international sharing, particularly in those projects meetings, and their ability to access funding implemented by extemal agencies. mechanisms. Nevertheless, the countries still felt that they were penalized by their 213. 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 national meeting intemational commitments or regional enabling activity projects, they experienced a concems, at the expense of national priorities dramatic drop in the budget allocation for their and of concrete national actions. In some cases national enabling activity project as soon as it the regional/global projects relied heavily on was made clear that they had previously international consultants, with a significant participated in a regional/global project. While portion of the project funding allocated to this may seem logical and equitable from one international companies or individuals. When point of view, the countries often felt that, in national experts were utilized, there was often the end, they had few tangible benefits to show limited consultation with the countries in the from having participated in the regional/global selection of these consultants. This generated project, given the weaknesses mentioned above some frustration in the participating countries, and the funding implications. This situation has which felt that after having achieved a sufficient led to countries having a certain aversion level of knowledge and created a core of against regional/global projects, despite their competent experts in climate change issues, positive results and their irreplaceable role in much more emphasis could be laid on enhancing country capacities, developing individual country needs and on the use of the opportunities for information sharing, and national expertise.89 In addition, it was obvious boosting public awareness. 89 Contractual arrangements were usually defined before project implementation, making it difficult to introduce any change that aimed at responding to evolving circumstances. 49 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects 216. In practice, there is an inherent risk of launching of different studies, the countries also harmful competition between national enabling had a need for peer review of the technical activity projects and regional/global projects. reports prior to validating them. In order to strengthen the synergies and the complementarity between these two types of 219. Technical support needs could be projects, the review finds it necessary to better achieved through five different mechanisms: differentiate the roles and the objectives of each of them. For example, the regional/global . The use of consultants (national and/or projects could focus on information exchange international); and network support, capacity building and training, development of methodologies, etc. * Exchange of information and knowledge; The national projects, in turn, could focus on the preparation ofnational documents relevant . Published or electronic references to the UNFCCC. (manuals, guidelines, other relevant materials, software, models, etc.); Interactions with enabling activity projects supported by a Participation in training workshops; and other external sources * Utilization of NCSP services. 217. In general, the perception of the countries regarding their participation in other enabling 220. Consultants. In general, an important activity projects (e.g. USCSP, GTZ, et al), is share of the climate change enabling activity similar to their perception of the GEF regional/ project budgets were allocated for the use of global projects. While the technical consultants. From the beginning, countries felt contribution of these projects was generally that enabling activities offered a unique satisfactory, factors like centralized managing opportunity to build national expertise on modalities, an emphasis on global objectives climate change issues. Therefore, they made over national interests, and a reliance on extensive use of national consultants in the external expertise did not result in strong enabling activity process. ownership of the final results by the participating countries. Moreover, the countries 221. In cases where national capacities to questioned the results of these efforts even more develop climate change related studies were too after realizing that they were being "penalized" limited, countries sometimes expressed their when they proceeded with their national need for international expertise. However, the enabling 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 to resort to this expertise to only a small extent. 218. Non-Annex I parties have had an 222. In those cases where expertise and important need for assistance and technical consulting capacity in the field of climate support related to climate change." In addition change was already established,9' countries to 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 Design and Implementation structures (universities, research centers), the activity projects with the opportunity to focus NGOs, or even from government ministries. on enhancing exchanges of information and The participation of these experts is, of course, experience, as well as broadening technical an 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 the representatives of ministries can often facilitate 225. With respect to international experts, and the development of enabling activity studies. with few exceptions, the limited resources of the expedited projects did not allow countries 223. Nevertheless, the use of these national to resort significantly to international experts also caused some difficulties for the consultants. In most cases, only global/regional projects for several reasons. First, the projects (e.g. NCSP-Riso, Country Case participation 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 some participation of representatives from ministries non-expedited projects were able to include a as consultants, has, in some cases, caused substantial international technical assistance conflicts of interest and confusion between component. their contribution as consultants, on one hand, and their role as representatives of their 226. Where involved, international experts institutions, on the other. Finally, the relevant usually participated in the initiation or training expertise in these countries was usually limited workshops. The contribution of international to a select group of individuals, with little consultants was important in providing transfer of knowledge or experience to the technical backstopping support,93 as well as actual institutions in charge of climate change sharing and transferring experience and issues. These difficulties are expected to be knowledge to the national project staff. reduced in the future, given the increasing Globally, recipient countries expressed a high market potential for the "climate change level of satisfaction regarding the contribution business" in developing countries, which of international experts. A few countries should result in greater development of private- indicated that they would liked to have had based consultancies. additional resources to hire international experts in a number of selective areas such as 224. In order to maintain existing capacities abatement, cost assessments, and vulnerability and to enlarge the groups of experts working and adaptation, or for peer-reviewing of the on climate change issues, the review final technical documents. recommends that additional resources be made available for enhancing the capacity building 227. In light of this finding, the review component of enabling activity projects. This recommends that the national enabling activity could 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 the technical 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 of training workshops, identifying consultants for some specific tasks, etc. 51 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects resources allowing countries to resort to Nevertheless, some resources were much more intemational expertise when appropriate. In difficult to obtain (vulnerability assessments, addition, this budget line should be managed climate modeling scenarios, GHG abatement flexibly in such a way that the countries can assessments, GHG emission models and make budget reallocations to other activities, if projections, etc.). Here also, the countries the need for intemational experts does not occur needed advice regarding the most appropriate during project development. Particular attention resources to obtain and some indication of how should be paid to resorting to regional experts to obtain them. and to supporting, for that purpose, regional centers of excellence. 230. For project initiation workshops, or for training on different climate change related 228. The possibility of exchanging informnation issues, many countries used the CC:TRAIN and experiences via the internet or during workshop package. Reactions to the material workshops, for instance, was also perceived by varied: some countries reported the package to the countries as one of the most valuable means be useful, while others felt the material was for accessing technical support that the out of date, did not fit into the various country enabling activity project could have offered. circumstances, and provided only general However, because of budget and time knowledge.94 Much more precise and evolving constraints, expedited climate change enabling technical training tools were needed by the activity projects did not include these kind of countries to adequately enhance their capacities activities. In fact, only the regional and global to undertake the different technical studies projects 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 the undeniable. The review mission considers it is lack of materials and software for carrying out essential that the national enabling activity technical studies, in particular those related to projects contribute to enhancing the exchange projections and modeling. In some cases, the of information and networking activities, with cost of relevant software is prohibitive (e.g. a clear description of these activities in the MARKAL),95 and the enabling activity project document and an adequate budget projects did not provide sufficient resources for allocation. acquiring this software and the training necessary to utilize it. In other cases, countries 229. On a positive note, countries generally had could not even obtain sufficient indications of easy access to pDublished resources that were the existence of specific software,96 or available around the world on the different information on how to acquire necessary aspects 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 not guidelines, 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 training in 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 mitigation exercises. 96 This was a particular problem for countries undertaking mitigation assessments in the forestry and agriculture sectors. 52 Design and Implementation these constraints have limited the quality and 235. Finally, the NCSP came out as one of the the rigor of some of the studies undertaken by major initiatives to assist non-Annex I parties the projects. in meeting their reporting commitments (national communication) to the UNFCCC in 232. In light of these challenges, the review a timely and comprehensive manner. UNDP recommends that the GEF and the took the lead in developing the proposal for this Implementing Agencies explore the various project. The NCSP is jointly implemented by possibilities and mechanisms through which UNDP and UNEP, with a technical contribution countries could better access essential software, from the UNEP Collaborating Centre on Energy as 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 responsibility 233. Countries participating in climate change of coordinating operation and technical enabling activity projects generally appreciated decisions of this project. In addition, a Project the technical support provided to the projects Steering Committee, consisting of two co-chairs through the use of workshops and seminars. (UNFCCC Secretariat and the GEF This support was often in the form of training Secretariat), as well as UNDP, UNEP, and workshops organized in the countries, or UCCEE, was put in charge of project involved the participation of country monitoring and evaluation. The donors (the representatives in various intemational training governments of Denmark, Finland, Norway and workshops or thematic technical seminars.?7 In the European Commission) and the World Bank terms of international workshoDs, however, were invited to join the Steering Committee. the countries felt that the national climate change enabling activities do not offer 236. The NCSP was launched after sufficient 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 the participation in several relevant workshops additional technical assistance needs of the contributed considerably to capacity and countries and to identify the most appropriate awareness building, as well as to better remedial actions to the obstacles addressed by involvement in international networks, and non-Annex I parties during the implementation participation 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 of building and information exchange component the reporting obligations to the UNFCCC; of the projects, it is recommended that the national enabling activity projects provide * Limited national expertise and inadequate adequate resources allowing the participation information on existing regional and of country representatives in international intemational expertise; and seminars and workshops, with a particular emphasis 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 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects 237. The project began in January 1999 and needs expressed by the countries, the NCSP should conclude by December 2000. The NCSP also organized a few training sessions. received US$3.2 million of funding, of which US$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 the was provided by the European Commission, positive results of the NCSP as having at least and US$0.4 million from Denmark and partly offset the gaps of national enabling Norway. The activities of the project were activity projects in terms of technical defined on the basis of the findings of a survey assistance. While having achieved satisfactory undertaken during a workshop involving results, it is unfortunate that the NCSP arrived African 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 guide has been disseminated to UNDP project 238. Items (a) and (c) were to be managed by coordinators. The Caribbean region, in UNDP, with the collaboration and assistance particular, has reported the guide to be of UNEP. The regional workshops for Africa, beneficial. The guide is also part of a "starter for instance, were to be organized by UNEP. package" of resources that is now sent to any Initially, item (b) was supposed to be managed enabling activity once it is in the pipeline.99 It by UNEP, with the relevant tasks to be sub- is also accessible through the NCSP website. contracted to the UCCEE. However, the TORs for technical assistance (TA) in the agreed 241. The NCSP has also improved the workplan state that UNDP manages the TA and monitoring system of GEF enabling activity that the UCCEE responds to the requests from projects by establishing a database comprising the UNDP support unit. UNEP also had some an updated version of the status of the information dissemination activities and the preparation of the national communication and responsibility of providing UNDP with an other relevant documents. The inputs to this updated status of its enabling activity portfolio. database are provided through a data collection system based on bi-annual surveys targeting all 239. The thematic regional workshops planned non-Annex I Parties that are preparing their by the NCSP were meant to offer countries the national communications under their national opportunity to exchange their respective enabling activity climate change projects. The experiences and to present the results of the data collection is also based on workshop different 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 of References for consultants. 54 Design and Implementation 242. It is important to recall that each of the * Participation of other stakeholders such two Implementing Agencies involved in the as members of academia, NGOs, private NCSP, with its different strengths and assets, sector and other groups. has an important role to play in the achievement of the project's objectives. In that respect, the 245. The pressure to prepare proposals rapidly review found that the collaboration between the and the generally weak tradition of broad UNDP and IJNEP was not perfect, and that institutional participation in many developing there is considerable room for improving the countries often limited participation by national quality of the support provided to enabling stakeholders. This lack of consultation at the activity projects through closer coordination of beginning of the process led not only to the activities of the project between the two insufficient consideration of country concems, agencies. The Project Steering Committee but also to an inadequate evaluation of the might play a leading role in establishing the resources necessary for the different activities appropriate collaborative spirits and enhancing necessary to prepare the national the interactions between the two agencies. communication. While it is undeniable that a broad participatory approach could slow the 243. It should also be noted that the NCSP is project preparation phase, it is equally true that close to completion while the country needs for participation of different stakeholders during technical assistance and support, information preparation minimizes the risk of institutional exchange, networking, etc., are still increasing resistance or non-cooperation during and evolving. Moreover, the NCSP has implementation. accumulated very valuable information and experience related to the crucial issues 246. In contrast, during project implement- associated with the enabling activity projects, ation, the review finds that the level of and with the preparation of the national stakeholder participation and cooperation was communication. All this "capital" will be lost much higher than during the project formulation unless the project continues. While it is the role stage. of the independent evaluation of the NCSP to provide a comprehensive assessment of the 247. The first priority of the enabling activity NCSP's performance, this review would projects was to establish appropriate support its continuation, given its critical institutional arrangements for project contribution to the enabling activity program as implementation. In countries that already had a whole. a National Climate Change Committee (NCCC), this did not represent a major COUNTRY LEVEL problem, since most stakeholders were already known and identified and could be counted on IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES to oversee the implementation of the enabling activity 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 emphasis on 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 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects on their NCCC tended to report fewer projects on the specific institutional institutional problems than those countries in arrangements made by the countries. Projects which the NCCC was comprised of scientific could manage such risks by including in the or technical personnel only. However, the project documents alternative institutional NCCC is not a panacea. Several projects were arrangements, in consultation with the based on an optimistic assumption that the Implementing Agencies, if needed. These existence of the NCCC would facilitate the project documents should include terms of establishment ofproject committees. While this reference of all the permanent and non- worked for some countries,"'° in general, permanent staff of the project and clearly NCCCs were neither active, nor operational, describe the background and experience and were not granted the necessary legal and required. institutional legitimacy to effectively play their role. 252. The review also notes the weaknesses of project documents regarding institutional 249. There is a clear weakness in the process strengthening. Although most projects included of appointing representatives to project institutional strengthening as an objective, committees. In most cases, representatives neither adequate resources-due to funding appointed because of their technical limitations-nor appropriate activities for competencies did not have a decision-making achieving these goals were actually role within their respective institutions, or were programmed."0' As a result, institutional not required to report back to their institutions. strengthening remains one of the major gaps As 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 in were unable to internalize the possible feedback creating the appropriate conditions for the within their native institutions. sustainability of the institutional arrangements. Most of the time, additional financial resources 250. In some cases, the appointment of the lead to support institutional strengthening was still agency also led to disagreements between needed even in countries where the main national institutions that often handicapped the objectives related to the preparation of the projects, before and during implementation. national communication were met in a very Weak stakeholder involvement during project satisfactory manner. preparation contributed to increasing the risks related to such institutional disagreements. In 253. On the part of the countries, there has general, disagreements about the leaderahip of seldom been any commitment to maintain staff projects often led to long negotiations within the working on climate change issues. In countries countuies, resulting in significant delays in signing where such staff have been maintained, the the project documents. climate change enabling activity process has been sustainable. It is important to stress that 25 1. Several cases of delays or suspensions of any effort by the GEF and Implementing projects occurred because of institutional Agencies will only be successful in the instability or a change in project leadership. presence of strong commitments from the host This 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 obviously unrealistic. 56 Design and Implementation 254. A number ofmajor recommendations can position was financed by the project. Most be made in order to strengthen the institutional often the appointment process was not arrangements that deal with climate change in sufficiently transparent. To safeguard the general and to improve the effectiveness of interest of projects, such decisions should be enabling activity projects: based on an open recruitment for candidates and involve the Implementing Agencies. * Secure strong involvement (not simply an endorsement) at the highest ministerial 257. The contribution of project committees in and 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 national provide 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 they the continuity of climate change studies, had been trained and often lost the benefits of as 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 launch enhancement of NCCCs by providing concrete follow-up actions, government them with official recognition and representatives ensure a minimum level of entrusting them with broad climate active participation and monitoring of these change-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 second coordinator often delayed proj ect stage of implementation. These included: (i) the implementation. This was often due to organization of training workshops; (ii) the disagreements between and within institutions evaluation of studies carried out as part of regarding the most appropriate candidate. In previous projects to identify the complementary some cases, fortunately, the extra time taken activities to be carried out by the enabling was due to the fact that the authorities wished activity project; and (iii) the execution of to select the best possible candidate. Despite studies. The review found that these activities the resulting delays, these precautions often were generally properly sequenced, and paid off, since the personality of the project represent a substantial effort made by the coordinator was often a critical factor for countries to build on the results of the existing project success.'02 initiatives. 256. This indecisiveness regarding 259. Theexperiencewithparticipationbycivil appointment of the project coordinator was society varied considerably. For instance, the more 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: the dynamism of the UNDP country office representatives and the high motivation and competence of the national consultants. 57 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects academic institutions was, in most cases, is due to their successive participation in the essential for project progress. In return, these COP and other forums, as well as their experts were able to strengthen and broaden numerous interactions with international NGOs their skills and receive new collaborating and agencies focussing on climate change. It is opportunities through participation in obvious that the enabling activity climate international events and connection to existing change projects would have certainly benefited networks. In the future, it is important that from greater involvement of NGOs on such enabling activity projects put greater emphasis issues. on involvement by these types of civil society experts. 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 the projects, NGOs often played a critical role in climate change process, in particular through the 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, thematic projects. Regarding the national enabling workshops targeted to the provinces and activity projects, NGO involvement was mostly dedicated to discussions on climate change effective, however the review noted also a issues and impacts were very much appreciated. number of instances of weak or partial participation of the NGOs. In the latter cases 264. Participation of the private sector, with the this weak involvement of NGOs was due to exception of consulting firms, was weak and weak consideration to the NGOs in the project most often nonexistent. Even when some documents, or to a rather restrictive perception projects mentioned the participation of the of governmental institutions regarding private sector in their projects, it was essentially participation of NGOs in the enabling activity to note that this sector represented difficulties project. for providing information during the execution of some studies. While it should be recognized 261. To date, enabling activity projects have that the private sector in developing countries focused primarily on the international often operates under strong economic obligations of countries rather than on concrete constraints and limited human resources and actions. Nevertheless, NGOs could provide time, enabling activity projects should better positive contributions for a number of engage this sector. For instance, in some important issues, such as vulnerability and countries, such as Bolivia and Zambia, a adaptation measures. In countries that rely growing awareness and interest of industry in heavily on woodfuel, for example, the climate change issues was noted, and this contribution ofNGOs in developing abatement resulted in a direct and positive dialogue measures, while at the same time targeting between the government and private sector social and economic welfare, is critical, representatives. considering their experience and field involvement in woodfuel use and resource 265. Participation by the private sector is management. particularly important for the development of concrete actions such as abatement or 262. Finally, the participation of NGOs could adaptation projects. All sectors (industry, also be particularly important for strategic agriculture, forestry, etc.) that could benefit issues related to the preparation of the national from the establishment of new financial communication. Several NGOs in developing mechanisms for developing abatement options countries have considerable experience and should be involved. understanding of climate change issues. This 58 Design and Implementation O INTEGRATIONOFCLIMATE 269. Generally, the APR contains two sections: CHANGE CONCERNS AND Part I, a numerical rating on a set of project RESULTS INTO PLANNING attributes, and Part II, Textual Assessment. ACTIVITIES Nevertheless, this review finds that as they are presently formulated, the APR and TPR reports 266. In most cases, due to a limited emphasis cannot be considered relevant tools for technical and support for awareness raising activities and oversight and supervision of the projects. In information exchange among and within the fact, the information provided in the APR is not governmental agencies, enabling activity substantive enough. Moreover, the APR is not projects did not adequately meet the original provided on a regular basis to staff and regional expectations regarding integration of climate coordinators at UNDP-GEF; its use is also change concerns into national development-- change concerns into national development uneven across the regional bureaus. This poses policies. In the future, projects should pay more a crucial problem, as most UNDP staff in attention to this crucial issue, through a clear country offices are not well versed in description of activities that are meant to environmental issues, and problems are not support this objective and provision of adequate brought to the attention of UNDP-GEF until resources. 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 regional AND MANAGEMENT coordinators at UNDP-GEF to provide them PROCEDU RES with an oversight and pulse for implementation progress of the projects. 267. Since UNDP and UNEP have the major shares of the portfolio, the assessment of United Natons Environment reporting 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 is Programme (UNDP) centralized at the UNEP headquarters in Nairobi with the support of its regional offices. 268. In teaoUThe major supervision mechanism for UNEP 268. In the case of UNDP, the supervision of the implementation of enabling activity projects is continuous interaction with the national is 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 the Report (APR), elaborated by the project project coordinator. However, this review finds coordinator and submitted to the UNDP office that quarterly progress reports are not in the country in preparation for the annual substantive and usually consist of a list of Tripartite Review-a high policy-level activities carried out during the preceding meeting"03 to assess progress based on theAPR quarter. Clear identification of problems in project implementation is not carried out in the and make management recommendations if necessary. quarterly reports, though there is a section in the report titled "summary of problems encountered in project delivery." 103 Involving the project executing agency, the government counterpart, and the UNDP representative. 59 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects 272. While the project manager is often aware of the implementation progress and results of of 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 and able to respond to problems adequately as they accessible information regarding the progress develop during implementation. Furthermore, of the enabling activities has been largely due there 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, and 273. This review recommends that UNEP d) will not continue to be collected beyond the strengthen the use of the quarterly report for limited lifetime of the program. supervision purposes and develop a regular system of visits to countries where project 275. This review recommends that the GEF implementation is not progressing satisfactorily Secretariat and the Implementing Agencies in 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 process in place to obtain a GEF-wide understanding 60 VI. PROJECT RESULTS TECHNICAL PRODUCTS benefits as well. However, the impression is that they have not been disseminated widely 276. The cmenough, either within the countries or at 276.ecth cimgenerate inchaged thenab lng tiv regional or international levels. An appropriate projects: in Gene includedto the folnaloin mechanism, with adequate resource allocation, products: (i) GHG inventory; (ii) vulnerabilty could be established by the GEF in order to and adaptation assessments; communabatemnt enhance interactions between projects and promote the dissemination of these technical products. This will help improve exchange of 277. The review observes that the enabling information and experiences, an important activity projects produced an impressive Convention objective. quantity of documents that directly related to the communication commitments under the 279. Technical work was not without Convention. 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 the manuals or studies about more specific aspects, documents are:"' were also produced. As of May 2000, 25 countries that benefited from GEF-supported enabling activities have transmitted their (a) Uncertainties associated with the quality enationgalcmmunicationsh transmitted the hC of the basic data, or difficulties in nationa communcation to theUNFCCCobtaining them. It is worth noting that Secretariat, and a large number of countries are obting them. Itjis wot notingothat progressing towards the completion of their enabling activity projects did not provide communications 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 under the enabling activity projects was satisfactory. (c) The contribution of training was This demonstrates a significant enhancement insufficient or faded out. This might be of skills in the fields of inventories, mitigation, due to the poor quality of tools used for and vulnerability and adaptation, while at the training, the nomination of inappropriate same time providing substantial inputs to the persons for training, or a lack of national communication. In some cases, the commitment tomaintainingstaffstability quality of the documents was impressive, and in recipient countries and host provided 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 the regional workshops that are organized by this project. In addition, the review benefited from the information collected through the country visits and country studies, as well as the surveys that were distributed, to which 62 countries responded. 61 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects (d) Lack of capacity (due to factors a, b and communications. In that respect, a well c above) in some countries to prepare established institutional framework, with higher quality products; or insufficient appropriate regulatory tools and incentives, are motivation, with work being looked upon among the most critical factors for sustaining as obligatory, with little emphasis on the process that had been launched so far by national benefits; climate change enabling activity projects. (e) Absence of internal and external peer 282. Reducing uncertainties, in particular review 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 countries progress of the projects. as essential for further improvement in abatement analyses. Other key difficulties are 280. Most countries believe that reducing the related to construction of appropriate baseline uncertainty of national inventories is a critical scenarios and development of abatement cost issue for future studies and the second assessments-there is a demand here for good communication, and stress the need to improve cost-assessment models. activity data and emission factors. Towards this objective, many countries have expressed OTHER ACHIEVEMENTS interest in participating in regional projects aimed 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 of process 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 taken after completing the national communication enhancement of data reliability through more "exercise," and are unsure of the extent to systematic data collection efforts. Resource and existing ancial m ha will be time constraints, as well as weak institutional able to provide financial assistance for the motivation, were the most critical barriers in prio prite defintioe in . thi init ia undertaking these efforts during the communications. implementation of enabling activity projects.'0 In addition, the countries generally required 284. In addition, because the GEF Guidelines methodologies 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 explicitly establish national systems. Most countries see address concrete investment activities despite the creation of a national database as essential aNDdrs crete " inv facvitie despite .. . . ~~~~~~UNDP's arguments'0 In favor of developing to maintaining capacity and ensuring the abatement and adaptation project proposals as continuity 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. The UNDP position was that to be meaningful, enabling activities should be allowed to proceed from sector-wide projections of abatement potential to the initial stages of project formulation. The GEF Secretariat disagreed, arguing that the enabling activity 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 is GEF has not made yet significant steps towards insufficient national data and/or expertise to clarifying this issue, though many countries develop them. It is important to reduce expressed greater expectations about this uncertainties related to vulnerability question 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 remedial investment actions emerging from enabling strategies. activities-ALGAS project outputs have been well received by donor agencies as well as the 287. Other common issues include unreliable Implementing Agencies and the private sector; or unavailable data, lack of long-term capacity the PICCAP and the enabling activity projects building in appropriate institutions, and in Lebanon, Philippines, and Thailand are other insufficient infrastructure such as monitoring good examples. In this context, it is stations for systematic observation and early recommended that the GEF and its warning systems. Provision of resources for Implementing Agencies establish a closer developing climate modeling for improving dialogue process with the countries in order to data and involving experts from developing identify their expectations and prepare the countries are among the most important appropriate framework for responding to them. priorities expressed by countries. 285. For many countries, funding and time 288. It is likely that the establishment of a constraints have limited the scope ofthe national permanent framework for improving and vulnerability and adaptation studies"< and updating the quality of data in the various areas constrained them from conducting additional of climate change, for the purpose of meeting studies that were identified as of critical the UNFCCC communication requirements, importance." Integrated assessments, socio- would be one of the most critical issues that economic studies, identification of adaptation will have to be addressed by non-Annex I options (phase I and II) and costing implications parties in the future. The question is whether are frequently reported as priority areas for this should be addressed through the enabling future work. activity projects or through a parallel process. 286. This issue was compounded by the fact 289. Capacity building was obviously one ofthe that most climate change scenario development, core objectives of the enabling activity process. at national levels, is undertaken using Global While the countries expressed higher Climate Models that provide a relatively low expectations for capacity building than what level of spatial resolution for national impact the enabling activity projects could offer, there studies. Some countries support the was undeniable evidence in the countries that development 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 with impacts assessments for forestry, agriculture, water resources, food security, etc. In addition, Phase I-Adaptation assessments were rarely carried out, while Phase Il-Adaptation was not addressed at all. 63 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects 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 teams change issues. There is also evidence that in place for the preparation of the subsequent enabling activity projects have achieved national communications. These concerns have indirect benefits. For instance, they have already been noted by the Parties to the enhanced the participation of the non-Annex I Convention, and decisions 2/CP.4 and 1 2/CP.4 parties in international fora, particularly the brought a response requiring the GEF to support COP, and seems to have strengthened their an ad-hoc "bridging" mechanism. As a response presence and contribution in the decision to this request, the GEF Council approved making process. additional funding to further supporting climate change enabling activity projects, and issued 290. The enabling activity projects have also Operational Guidelines for Expedited contributed considerably towards enhancing Procedures-Part II for enabling activity the scientific and technical knowledge in projects. recipient countries, and to developing new methodologies."' There is evidence that 294. These guidelines were meant to respond universities and academic institutions have to the capacity building needs of the countries significantly benefited from enabling activity beyond preparing initial national projects, through participation in training and communication. Countries eligible for GEF technical studies. In some cases, universities assistance may select from the five following have even included specific courses on climate activities according to their needs and change, and involved students in their research priorities: on climate change. 0 Identification/submission of technology 291. Cross-sectoral analysis has also helped needs, including the necessary capacity establish a new collaborative spirit among building to assess, acquire, design, stakeholders involved in the process. This implement and evaluate projects; should help improve interactions and consultations between national institutions, * Capacity building for participation in even beyond the simple climate change systematic observation networks; process. Improvement of emission factors; 292. Moreover, in some cases, work related to climate change activities was used as a * Maintenanceandenhancementofnational foundation for confirming or re-aligning capacities to prepare national development policies. The development of communications; and energy conservation strategies, the promotion of renewable energy, and the adoption of better * Developing/strengthening/improving forestry management practices figured in the national activities for public awareness list of the development priorities. and education, and access to infornation. 293. Despite these results, many countries 295. It is clear that these are the main have expressed concerns about the sustainability weaknesses encountered by the climate change of 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 that until a more long term mechanism is defined. websites represent a cost-effective and efficient In addition, a longer term mechanism should tool for meeting the convention requirements. also incorporate actions for improving national The review recommends that enabling activity institutional arrangements and mechanisms to projects give better support to such initiatives ensure integration of climate change issues into in the future, by granting the necessary the 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) the made provisions for this purpose. Most of the regular updating of information contained in sites 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 likely good practices that were adopted by the to promote the replicability and dissemination countries or the Implementing Agencies in order of this experience in other countries. to improve the results and efficiency of the enabling activity projects and their 300. In Armenia, the enabling activity project effectiveness. Good practices were also highlighted the impact of climate change on adopted to overcome some obstacles by giving forestry resources, and has also developed more flexibility to the implementation of enabling simulation models showing these impacts. activity projects. These good practices are described in the following paragraphs, for ACHIEVING OUTREACH AND illustrative purposes, on the basis of the specific experiences of the countries visited or studied INFORMATION EXCHANGE during the review. Despite varying and changing country circumstances, it is useful for BENEFITS THROUGH THE USE countries to take stock of these experiences, OF INTERNET and 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 first ACHIEVING ADDITIONAL countries to have developed a climate change BENEFITS THAT SERVE website in 1995. This innovative and interesting idea has contributed significantly to the REGIONAL AND development of the Brazilian National Communication and to raising public INTERNATIONAL CONCERNS awareness. This constituted an important tool for the implementation of the Brazilian 298. The enabling activity project in Brazil is commitments under the UNFCCC. The achieving impressive results that go beyond importance of this idea has been recognized providing benefits only for the country, since by the UNFCCC Secretariat, which has created Brazil has about one-third of all tropical forests. the CC:INFOWEB program for the diffusion In fact, in addition to strengthening national of the Brazilian model to other developing capacity by developing more specific countries. deforestation data, the enabling activity project is achieving a significant reduction of the 302. Reflecting the whole preparation process uncertainty in calculating the emissions from of the national communication, the site makes tropical deforestation. It is likely that this available all the information generated by the methodology will provide significant institutions and experts involved in the contributions to the work of the IPCC and preparation of inventories and documents for benefit many other countries. the national communication, including the name and contact information of all the experts 299. Brazil has also established a solid base involved and responsible for the elaboration of for monitoring land-use change and forestry each document. This enhances the quality and through satellite imagery. The review found this reliability of the work, ensuring transparency GEF initiative very relevant as it serves the and allowing a greater participation of experts 67 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects not involved directly in the process but who wish INVOLVING THE MEDIA IN to make comments and suggestions. THE PUBLIC-AWARENESS 303. The internet has also made possible a EFFORT forum for interaction and experience sharing among experts from different sectors, facilitating the collective development of the work, 307. Enabling activity projects have rarely shortening distances, and decreasing costs and utilized the media for information the need for meetings and trips. Thus the dissemination and public awareness. The climate change internet site has strengthened media can be a useful actor in translating the capacity of the coordination unit and helped technical and scientific statements that are to decentralize the preparation of the national provided by the experts into more easily communication, allowing a complete accessible communication material for the involvement of all relevant institutions, general public. It is recommended that enabling regardless 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 wider becoming a reference site internationally and information dissemination, with very positive is enhancing Brazil's participation in the global impacts. In the CPACC project, for example, a climate 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 briefing is still limited, network conditions are evolving documents for decision-makers, teaching kits rapidly, resulting in an exponential increase of and video scripts. Additionally,journalists have the number of Brazilian internet users. In the been sensitized to climate change issues, with long run, the effect ofthe extensive use ofthe encouraging results. For example, one internet in Brazil for climate change matters journalist from Saint Lucia who participated may 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 to and 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 workshop Azerbaijan, Honduras, Lebanon, Philippines, for awareness building among representatives etc.) had made similar attempts to establish of the print and electronic media, with a view websites with varying results and benefits. The towards encouraging the media to disseminate main issue encountered related to maintenance information on climate change issues. The of the website after the end of the enabling PICCAP project has often complemented its activity project. This required more human outreach and public awareness campaigns with resources and relevant data resources to items prepared for the written media, radio and accomplish. television 68 Good Practices DEVELOPING INTERACTION Papua New Guinea, Tonga, and many Caribbean 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 in activity projects have developed relationships taking stock of experience gained by their and synergies that allowed the countries to regional neighbors, regional interaction is also benefit from the exchange of information and a cost-effective way for strengthening experience. These also contributed to enhancing capacities and improving the quality of the the 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 be in 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 of workshop on greenhouse gas emissions was whether they have a national or regional/global conducted in cooperation with the National approach. Communications Support Program. Experts from several countries in the Central Asia PARTICIPATION IN Region participated in the workshop. The Azerbaijan team found the experience INTERNATIONAL TRAINING extremely valuable for cross-checking and WORKSHOPS AND validating their approach to the preparation of the inventory. Similar experiences have been INTERNATIONAL EVENTS also organized by the NCSP and proved very beneficial to the countries. 315. As mentioned earlier, the enabling activity projects did not provide resources for travel and 312. In West Africa, UNDP also initiated a participation in intemational workshops and similar regional workshop in Mali. The events. In Lesotho, for instance, the enabling objective of this workshop was to allow activity project paid particular attention to participants from Benin and Chad, which were capacity building through participation of just at the beginning of the implementation of different country experts in several relevant their enabling activity projects at that time, to workshops and seminars outside Lesotho benefit from the experience gained by Senegal (seven in Africa and two outside Africa). These and Mali, which were in a more advanced stage have considerably contributed to the success of developing their climate change studies and of the project, and to increasing the ability of preparing their initial national communication. Lesotho to meet the convention communication requirements. 313. PICAPP is also an outstanding example of regional cooperation. Through cooperative 316. Although such expenditures are normally efforts with other institutions and programs, not eligible under GEF enabling activities, the other countries (both within and outside the rationale for this practice is that these meetings Pacific islands region) have been able to provide country representatives with unique participate in, and hence benefit from, the training opportunities and serve as important capacity building activities of PICCAP. This venues for updating their knowledge of climate has included participation in PICCAP's training change issues. In light of this result, the review workshops and the use of PICCAP's training recommends that this practice be more and information resources. Countries that have explicitly recognized and appropriately benefited directly included the Maldives, Niue, provisioned for in the future. 69 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects 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 enabling 317. In many countries, the enabling activity activity projects. The review observed that projectsihave suffered considerably fromp weak countries did not systematically stress the political support to the activities implemented importance of such participation, particularly by the project. It is the opinion of the review at the policymaking level. This resulted in an that strong political support is a crucial condition insufficient endorsement of the results and not only for the success of the enabling activity limited integration of climate change concerns projects but also for the development of the into the planning activities, as put into question climate change process as a whole in the the sustainability of the climate change policy countries. This strong support may be process as a whole, evidenced through the involvement of high level decision-makers and official establishment of 322. In that respect, the review observed that climate change committees. the benefits of enabling activity projects were most effective in countries where emphasis was 318. In Azerbaijan, for instance, a State laid on widening stakeholder participation. In Commission on Climate Change was the Philippines, for instance, significant established by Presidential order. This stakeholder participation has contributed to a Committee is chaired by the First Deputy Prime satisfactory implementation of activities and a Minister 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 of project,atheNationalCenterforClimate Change the implementation of the project, involved was established with the coordination of the highly skilled professionals from the relevant State Hydrometeorology Committee. The high- ministries, agencies, academic institutions and level political attention to the issue has NGOs. In Zambia, the project has also galvanized all the relevant government promoted the participation of representatives ministries and agencies and led them to from universities, NGOs, and most relevant contribute their best efforts to the govemmentagenciesatthenationallevel. The implementation of the Project. Zambian Association of Chambers of Commerce and Industry also advised the team 319. The Philippines also established an Inter- that there is a growing awareness in industry Agency 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, the involved high level representatives from the private sector was fully involved in the most important ministries and stakeholders in activities of the project. this IACCC. 323. In Armenia, the composition of the Project 320. In Lesotho, climate change has also Steering Committee (PSC) and the role that it received support from the Minister of Natural played in providing guidance and supervision Resources, and this greatly contributed to the to the project has contributed to the satisfactory success of the project. implementation of the project. The PSC 70 Good Practices comprises 16 members, including the Minister FLEXIBILITY IN of Nature Protection (Chairman), five First Vice Ministers (Nature Protection, Energy, REDESIGNING THE PROJECT Economy, Agriculture and Industry) and ACTIVITIES representatives of intemational donor agencies, research institutions, academics and NGOs. The PSC, by its very composition and active 326. Effectively addressing climate change participation in developing the Project's issues can be like shooting at a moving target strategic agenda and in selection and because of the continuing evolution of appointment of the national consultants, information, needs and priorities. It is underscore the importance of the project to the unfortunate that many projects have suffered country. from a lack of flexibility would help countries react to these changing circumstances. One FLEXIBILITY IN good practice would be to allow for greater flexibility and a more pro-active approach from REALLOCATING PROJECT the Implementing Agencies and the project participants. This would contribute towards FUNDING increasing effectiveness ofprojects in meeting evolving needs of countries. 324. While the resource allocations for enabling activity projects globally have 327. Some projects were able to adopt this adequately covered the activities aimed at flexibility. For instance, the first Multipartite achieving the main goal ofpreparing the national Project Review (MPR) of the PICAPP project communication, flexibility in funding allocations, suggested that identification of mitigation options during 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 was Zambia, for instance, reallocation of resources consistent with the lack of technical capacity among budget categories, especially the at national level and that it would also be more increased outlays for training, education and cost effective. The Project committee awareness has contributed to a better response supported this change, with agreement from all to country needs, and thus to improving the the Parties to endorse the regional report, with benefits and the results of the project. an adequate reference to national level implications. National level mitigation 325. Activities that were better supported in activities are now being captured in the Zambia include an awareness building National Implementation Strategies and workshop for key stakeholders such as through other initiatives such as the National government planning officers and the private Strategic Studies that facilitates national sector to promote climate change concerns in projects under the Clean Development the planning process. Another workshop was Mechanism. organized for awareness building among representatives of the media. 71 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects 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 GEF project implemented in June 197 y N anexecuted by the Souh Pcficf Regional 'Enirmonmt Programme (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 itsovrl level Of achievement, particularly in light of the limiehua,nsttoaladfnnclrsucs available atteoteWnytreyasagINo nyhv l u n o h omlpoetojcie been mnet, within the prescribed time frmes and reotedywti ugt u utial ytmo national assessment and reporting is now in place in h e cutres Thi atraheeetcnb measured in thelform of officially reognized institutiona structures,tandntoas n acn informiationi management procedures. Moreover, nertdntoa oiis n ln eae ociae change are in anh advnced stageof ~ddevelopmentin otcutis PICCAP employed4acouintr ~te-amapproach which involved the nationalgovernment designatingain agheny to host a team of oseftmrl reipresentatives, national experts, andIIotherstAkeIholrsinuig privat sectoreandNGO interests, who in turn fcilitate policy and ojdeisio-n-m fakigoncimt cag issues 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 predoiatyhruhhefotofninl consltants oirnationial government employOees, witout theIus ofitentona rosultants.We regona cnsutats er usd,they were rqietowkwthninal counterpart andtasr kolde an xets nways that enhac hua eorces in asutialmnerAohr ChneVunrbltad Adp Atio Asesmnt whcsfrher hlingtePcfcntosscrog term, hoegoneprie The enhancement ofcapacity has not been limited to theprjectparticiats. Throg oprtie0fra With other insttutionis and programs, other couties inadou fthe region havebw bet atcpt in, and benefit from, the capacity building activitie fPCA.Ti a nlddpriiaini PICCAP'sI training Workshops and theb use of PiC Pstringadnfmtoneouc. The success of PICCPcnb patillyatrbutedto teinherent rcgiinb h atcpnsta capacity building is intga tfuilngteroiainsunder*theUNFCC.IQ lorfet h plcto Of thie collective experec n idmo t ate raiain.UD,frisac,pae rtcl role in project design imlmnaio,adeAlainwheSPEfclttdwoknrltosip between the counre adpoientritrbuiosintemofecnaladisrtv,adfnncl support. other participats, icdngCTRAIN, provide vitlresawl. 1 These ten nations are the Cook Istads Republic of Fiji, Repubtic of iria Reulco asalIlns Federated States of Micronesia, Naunru, Samnoa, Solomont Islands, TuValu, anid Rpbi Vnau 2 The existeneoahese imttosintc,wsenasnefth primaryusfiaonfrprungaeinl approach. 72 ANNEXES ANNEX 1 TERMS OF REFERENCE BACKGROUND as '[measures] such as planning and endogenous capacity 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,ofeecversne compilation of information, policy analysis, wmth the Conveneon, of effective response and 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 Environment means of fulfilling essential communications Facility (GEF), the entity operating the financial requirements to a Convention, provide a basic mcaimo h NCCo nitrmbss and 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 activities within a country. Countries thus enabled will have the ability to formulate and direct "Priority should be given to the funding of sectoral and economy-wide programs to agreed full costs (or agreed full incremental address global environmental problems costs, as appropriate) incurred by developing through a cost effective approach within the country Parties in complying with their context of national sustainable development obligations under Article 12.12 and other efforts.' relevant commitments under the Convention. In the initial period, emphasis should be placed on 2. Climate Change Enabling Activities. enabling activities undertaken by developing In the context of climate change, enabling country Parties, such as planning and activities were defined by the Conference of endogenous capacity-building, including the Parties (COP) to the UN Framework institutional strengthening, training, research Convention 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 accordance with Article 4.1, shall communicate to the Conference of the Parties, through the Convention Secretariat, the following elements of information: "(a) A national inventory of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, to the extent its capacities permit, using comparable methodologies to be promoted and agreed 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 and suitable for inclusion in its communication, including, if feasible, material relevant for calculations of global emission trends". 75 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects 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 into account 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 by guidelines4 for the content of the first national the Conference of Parties."6 COP4 also communications from non-Annex-i Parties. In decided "to ensure that issues and concerns its 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) and Annex I Parties. The guidance also required through it, as appropriate, its implementing the GEF to expedite the approval and agencies whenundertaking the comprehensive disbursement of financial resources for this review of enabling activities projects."7 purpose and consider country-specific needs and 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 GEF financing 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, to need for funding support for preparing initial guide the preparation and scheduling of support and 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 Convention in 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 of thematic and regional exchange workshops. CHANGE ENABLING ACTIVITIES RATIONALE AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY 7. The GEF has supported Climate Change Enabling 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 review million 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 the amounting 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), it US$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 Initiative 8. In March 1998, the GEF approved a proposedunderthe StrategicPartnerships (GEF/ National Communications Support Programme C. 13/9). amounting to US$2 million, implemented jointly by the UNDP and UNEP. The project is 10. The overall purpose ofthe study will be to geared towards enhancing the capacity of take stock of experience with GEF-supported participating non-Annex I Parties to prepare climate change enabling activities and to extract their 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 activity timeliness of the initial national communication modality; (ii) the effectiveness and efficiency from non-Annex I Parties to the Convention of the process-the GEF approval process and in accordance with the guidance provided by the national execution process; (iii) influence CoP-2 through the operation of a "Help" desk on broader capacity building and/or planning for climate change enabling activities, in countries through the process ofpreparation provision of additional technical assistance to of initial communications; and (iv) best countries 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 the Chairs, GEF Council Meeting, October 14-16, 1998. 77 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects 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 and Communications Support Programme will be flexibility to specific country needs. considered in the review to examine how the program is covering gaps identified in the GEF- (e) Evaluate the effects of expedited supported enabling activities. The specific procedures in terms of elapsed times for activities to be conducted under the study are: different stages of the project preparation, approval, and disbursement process. Response to guidance from the COP Portfolio overview (a) Identify elements of COP guidance (from (f) Identify the status of various countries among those referenced in footnotes 3, 4, enabling activities, specifying the status and 5) to which the GEF Operational of sub-components, and preparation/ Criteria on Climate Change Enabling submission of first national Activities has responded. communications. (b) Assess the responsiveness of Project design and operationalization of elements of COP implementation guidance relevant to GEF Climate Change Enabling 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 Enabling the 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 enabling Implementing Agencies, and the activities towards meeting the objective UNFCCC Secretariat in the of preparing the first national operationalization of Convention communications.'4 guidance in terms of specific milestones of consultation. (h) Assess the roles played by the countries, the Implementing Agencies and the GEF Effectiveness of the Secretariat in developing the portfolio of operational 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 its Enabling Activities in termns of: (i) ease consistency with established timelines, ofinterpretation and operationalization by quality and relevance of technical the 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, with reference 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 through to design and implement enabling the three different approaches for enabling activities; assess the adequacy of project activities-full country projects, regional implementation time and schedule. projects, projects under expedited procedures, as referenced in para. 7. () Examine how the enabling activities complemented existing climate change Project results related activities in country. Specifically examine the complementarity with (q) In countries where implementation has enabling activities supported by other been underway for a significant amount extemal sources of financing. of time: (k) Identifythesources,andassessthequality (i) Assess, if possible, whether the of technical assistance available to design contributions of enabling activities and implement the projects, with specific are progressing towards meeting reference to: (i) advice and inputs from objectives set forth in the project Implementing Agencies; (ii) manuals, design, including preparation and guidelines or other relevant materials; and submission of initial communica- (iii) consultants, with particular attention tions. to the use of national and regional consultants. (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 human project 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 to global climate change enabling activity improve and prepare inventories- projects on country-level enabling activity included in the enabling activity projects and/or national communications. projects. Assess possible synergies or overlaps between GEF-supported activities and (iii) Assess additional benefits, if any, that bilateral programs. have resulted from enabling activities. (n) Assess whether the National Best practices Communications Support Programme is providing adequate and appropriate (r) Describe remedial actions taken by lAs additional assistance to countries to to early problems identified with the address identified gaps in the enabling design and implementation of enabling activity project design. activities. (o) Assess the reporting and management (s) Identify the best practices and lessons procedures on implementation of enabling leamed in the design and implementation activities. of enabling activities. 79 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects Recommendations have undertaken a common approach to enabling activities; (t) Recommend broadly what modifications, if any, should be undertaken in the future (f) Preparation of country case studies on to 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 approval procedures, stakeholder participation and (h) Questionnaires to countries (to be carried other relevant elements of enabling outtogetherwithongoingworkunderthe activities. National Communications Support Programme). METHODOLOGY STUDY TEAM 12. The proposed methodology for the study will 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, an Development Programme, United Nations international consultant, and local in-country Environment Programme, the World consultants. The identified members of the Bank, 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 of enabling 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 UJNDP relevant bilateral and multilateral agencies, international, regional and local * Mr. Ravi Sharma, UNEP NGOs, 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, Ramesh studies) by consultants, focusing on Ramankutty, GEF Monitoring and regional groups of countries which may Evaluation Team 15 FCCCISBI/l999/INF.3, National Communication from Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention; Provision of Technical and Financial Support, FCCC/SBI/I 999/MISC.2, National Communication from Parties not included inAnnex I 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 of and field visits implementation; 14. The team will participate in all stages of (c) Large/smallprojects; the study, including developing detailed plan and methodology for the study and participate (d) Large/small countries/island nations; in initial synthesis discussions on finding and conclusions following country visits. Local (e) Countries with low emissions and high consultants will participate in the team visits vulnerability/countries with high to countries and preparation of selected country emissions and low vulnerability; case studies. (f) Geographical balance; and 15. The team leader (with inputs from the team) 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 OUTPUT interview guides, a list of countries proposed for case studies and country visits, as well as a 17. The team leader will be responsible for schedule 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 feedback received, a second draft will be prepared for 16. The team members will visit a selected management review at the GEF Secretariat and number of countries. The countries will be the Implementing Agencies. Following selected to broadly represent the following management review, a third draft will be factors: 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 GEF under normal GEF procedures; Council. The final report will consist of 30-50 pages plus appendices, including, inter alia, a list of all interviewees and data sources. 16 Team members will be requested to provide specific inputs. 81 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects PROPOSED SCHEDULE 1. Idetifiiation of independent consultant January 4, 2Q00 2. Finalization of Terms of Reference for review February 7, 2000 03. : Tem Meting :0 tooovrTR anjd fthozemetodoog JFeruary 7, 2000 4. 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, 2000 7 . 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, 2000 9. Seco5nd Draft Reor-fr EFSEC-IA managementreviwA f tAt:f tttfJuly 15,20 000C0t 10. Third Draft Report-for country comments August 15, 2000 11l . Final Report S:0500t 0 000 ft0 ft000 0j00t0 ti0 $eptember 31<,200 12. Desktopping and Publishing October 1, 2000 82 ANNEX 2 THE REVIEW APPROACH The review was managed by the GEF * Finalizationofthereviewschedule; Monitoring and Evaluation team at the GEF Secretariat. It involved an inter-agency * Task assignments to Team members; taskforce comprised of staff members from the UNDP, UNEP, The World Bank, and the GEF * Finalization of the questionnaires to be Secretariat, and led by Mr. Samir Amous, an addressed to country coordinators for a intemational consultant. broader review of enabling activity project; and The review collected information from a variety of sources, including desk review of * Identification of national/Regional project documents and other relevant consultants for country visits and country/ documentation, consultations with the regional studies. Implementing Agencies and UNFCCC Secretariat, views expressed by the Parties FINALIZATION OF THE through the UNFCCC, country visits, country and regional case studies, and questionnaire REVIEWING APPROACH surveys. In addition, the review will benefit from the large information framework The information gathering started in March developed by the National Communication 2000 with the country visits, country studies and Support Programme. transmission of the questionnaires to the project coordinators. Country visits were completed in THE REVIEW AGENDA April 2000 except for Armenia, which was completed in May 2000. The initial phase of the review started on February 2,2000, with the first visit ofthe Team THE REVIEW TEAM leader to the GEF Secretariat at Washington D.C. The aim of this first visit was to organize The core review team comprised of following meetings with all concemed Parties including 10 experts: the Team members, and to finalize the implementing 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 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects Country visits Armenia Ms. Aida Iskoyan ;Aietaijan Mr. lmran Behbudov Bolivia Mr. Mauricio Meza Caestro Brazil Mr. Emilio La Rovere Cameroon Dr. J.H. Chendjou Lnonb6m Dr. Riad Chedid Lesotho Ms. Lucy Khalema Redeby aliW Dr. Aroiia Coulibaly Philippines Ms. Marisol Portal South Africa Mr. Khorrombi Matibe Vietnam Dr. Nquyen Duc Minh Zambia Mr. David Mbewe Country Studies Egypt Mohamed EISobki, Associate Prof., Cairo University Honduras Mr. Jaime J. Bustillo Pon, independent consultant India Prof. P.R. Shukla, Prof. Indian Institute of Mgmt. Malaysia Dr. G. Sivalingam. Prof. University of Malaya eonaflaU Studies Caribbean Mr. Cletus Springer, Impact Consultancy Services Pacfic Prof.JohnHays, Waikato University In addition, regional and national consultants . Project evaluations (mid-evaluation, Final were hired to assist with country visits or to evaluation, Tripartite review, etc.); undertake country/regional studies. Team members, implementing agencies and their . Project status reports including PIMS country offices, as well as the UNFCCC (where relevant); Secretariat assisted in the identification of consultants. The list of the consultants involved . Annual Project Report (APR); in the review is as listed above. * Quarterly operational reports; DOCUMENTS CONSULTED D Project status reports; FOR THE REVIEW * Any document relevant for the review; The review had also relied on the existing and documentation available at GEF-SEC as well as at Implementing Agencies Headquarters, * UNDP and UNEP databases for EA Regional Bureaus and country offices. The projects. types of documents that were reviewed had included: COUNTRY VISITS AND * Any relevant technical document related COUNTRY/REGIONAL STUDIES to the Enabling Activity projects (e.g. National Communications, GHG Eighteen enabling activity projects were Inventories, 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 were reviewed 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 potential enabling contribution/benefits ofGlobal/Regional * Countries with low emissions and high projects was made in the countries concerned vulnerability/countries with high by the review. emissions and low vulnerability; The team members visited a selected number . Geographical balance; and of countries. The countries were selected according to the following parameters: . Implementing Agency representation. * Projects approved under expedited The nineteen reviewed projects represent procedures/projects that were approved around 14% of the total number of GEF climate under 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 the projects that are in early stages of total budgetallocatedto climate change enabling implementation; 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 GEF CLIMATE CHANGE ENABLING ACTIVITY PROJECTS IA Region Procedure Budget (US Dollars) COUNTRY VISITS Mali UNDP SSA EP 94,760 South Africa UNEP SSA EP 321,000 Lesotho UNEP SSA EP 350,000 Zambia UNEP SSA EP 256,000 Cameroon UNEP SSA EP 265,000 Vietnam UNEP EAP EP =212,500 Armenia UNDP ECA Fl.R 350,000 Azerbaijan UNDP ECA EP 324,500 Brazil UNDP LAC FP 1,500,000 Bolivia UNDP LAC EP 185,220 LebaLnon UNDP MENA EP 292,600 COUNTRY STUDIES India UNDP EAP FP 1,500,000 Egypt UNDP MENA FP 402.000 Honduras UNDP LAC EP 325,000 Malaysia UNDP EAP FP 470,000 REGIONAL CASE STUDIES PICAPP UNDP EAP FP 2,440,000 CPACC WB LAC FP 6,300,000 TOTAL 15,743,080 IA: Implementing Agency EP Expedited Project FP: Full Projects CPACC 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, Salomon Islands, Tuvalu, Vanuatu. 85 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects reality of the enabling activity portfolio as a prepared for that purpose (ref. Annex 12), and whole. transmitted to the project coordinators. The questionnaire included 5 main modules In general, the country visits included two core corresponding to the items in the terms of team 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 and documentation; * Project implementation-related questions; * Making a first analysis of the enabling activity project on the basis of the terms * Project results; and of reference of the review; * Overall project experience. e Accompanying and assisting the country visit teams; and Information gathering through the National Communication * Providing follow-up activities after country Support Programme visit completion where needed. Since its commencement, the National Country studies included four countries. CmuiaonSprtPgamehsad National consultants were commissioned to CommunicationSupportProgrammehasmade undertake these country studies and to provide an important effort to gather and maintain a country report to the core team. Regional information regarding the enabling activity studies included two projects. Regional projects. The review team had the opportunity to look to the files that are maintained by NCSP consultants were commissioned to undertake aninoprtthtnfmtonnotervew these regional studies and to provide reports to the core team. The regional review required Interactions between national EA the 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 sought Review survey information on the GloballRegional projects that directly concemed the country, and tried to In addition to the 18 projects specifically assess the interaction between the national concerned 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 3 LIST OF CLIMATE CHANGE ENABLING ACTIVITY PROJECTS Enabling Activities Supported Under Expedited Procedures No. 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)1996 2 A_oofa _ U_DP - S 194,670r 22-Jan-98 11-Feb-98 1 1998 3Antigua& Barbuda UNDP $161,5001 21-Jul-97 22-Dec-97 (1) 1998 4 Azerbai an UANDP $34S00 16-Jul-97 25-Dec-97 (1) 1998 5 Bahamas UNDP $185,300_ 26-Aug-97 1 0-Sep-98 (2) 1998 _ Sipbados LINDP $89,417B 31-Oct-97 g : -Se-9 . 13999 7 Belize UNDP $185,100 8-Jan-98 9-Jun-98 (3) 1998 8 Benin UNDP 100,42 3 9 24-Mr-99 b (2)1998 9 Bhutan UNDP _ $296,000 26-Jun-96 13-Aug-96 (2) 1997 10 Bclivia UNDP $185,220 7-Juul-98 I8-(3) 1998 11 Burkina Faso UNDP $233,810 19-May-97 27-Jan-98 (3)1997 12 urndi UNOP $319A45Q 18-Se -98 19-Jan-99 (2) 999 13 Cambodia UNDP $325,480 24-Mar-97 24-Aug-98 (2) 1998 14 Cape Verde UNop $319,300 1$-Mar-97 21-Aug-97 - (3)199 15 Chad UNDP $100,425 23-Au -99 1-Feb-00 pending 16 Chile UNDP 5350,008 30-Aug-96 | 11-Apt-97 (3)1997 17 Colombia UNDP $345,000 24-Jun-99 I 28-Aug-99 pending IS 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) 1997 20 Coafia ... UNP $345 17--99 (1) 1999 21 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) 999 25 El Salvador UNDP $320,000 24-Mar-97 9-Sep-97 (2) 1997 26 Etieas. UNDP $308O 4-Sep-96 t3Feb-9 8 .3) 1996 27 Ethio ia UNDP | $213,210 19-May-97 31-Jul-98 (2) 1997 28 - . $3, 10-Sep-98 44_:r-99 (3)19.9 29 Gambia UNDP $137,900 24-Mar-97 17-Nov-97 (1) 1997 30 Georgia UNDP T $32,000 4-Sep-96 20JWan-97 (1) 1997 31 Ghana UNDP $94,760 16-Jul-97 15-Jan-98 (2) 1997 3 (Grendda LINOP $184,370 25-Aug-98 11-Dec-98 (1) 1 98 33 Guatemala UNDP $326,000 24-Mar-97 13-Jan-98 1) 1998 34 u4nea UNDP $45,600 19-May-97 9-Feb-98 ( -2) 1999 35 Guinea Bissau UNDP $345,600 5-Jun-97 Pending 8 Guarana -NDYP $196,730 27-Oct-97 5-&Jun-98 (3) 1998 37 Honduras UNDP $325,000 24-Mar-97 7-Nov-97 (3) 1997 38 Indonesia UNOP $228,200 13-Nov-97 28-Jul-98 (3)1998 39 Iran UNDP $349,995 24-Jun-97 29-Oct-97 (1) 1998 40 Jarnaca UA-P $232780 9-Jan-98 28-Apr-98 (1) 1999 41 Jordan UNDP $87,550 15-Dec-97 16-May-98 (1) 1998 42 Korea DPFt UNDP $1A54,200 23-Jan-97 3-Apr-97 - (3)1997 43 Lao PDR UNDP $313,000 29-Jul-96 22-Oct-96 (2) 1997 44 Lebanon - UN1DP . 11-Jul-96 16-Dec-96 1 (3)1996 45 Macedonia UNDP $345,000 5-Feb-99 4-Aug-99 - (3)1999 46 Madagascar UNOP $350000 24-Jun-99 Pendiog 47 Malawi UNDP $193,640 18-Mar-97 22-May-98 | (1) 1997 48 Mali $9476D 116ul-97 9-Jan-98 1 199 8 49 Malta UNDP $265,000 9-Nov-99 31-Dec-99 pendina so Moldova OUNDP $32500 1-ASug97 - 22-Dec-97 - (1998 | 51 Morocco UNDP I $144,220 6-Oct-99 22-Feb-00 pending 52 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)1998 54 r Nfr$345,600 2 87 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects 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) 1997 56 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) 1997 60 Senec alP $67,100 2Au -97 - 28-Nov-97 (3) 1997 61 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) 1998 64 Sr a U $110000 21-Mar-970 4-No-97 (3)1997 65 St. Kitts & Nevis UNDP $158,620 3-Feb-98 8-Oct-98 (1) 1999 66 StLucia UNOP $169,9006u -97 16-Jul-98 (3 8 67 Sudan UNDP $290,000 3-Oct-96 4-Feb-97 (1) 1997 68 Suriname UNOP 0000 0-S -98 19- 98 (311999 69 Swaziland UNDP $303,850 18-Mar-97 28-Nov-97 (3) 1997 70 TaJikistan UNDP $32,700 ending i 71 Thailand UNDP $189,500 13-Nov-97 5-Jun-98 3)1998 72 Togo UNEP$3800 8Ju-7 0Apr-9 (2)f997~ 73 Tonga UNDP $325,000 27-Oct-99 74 Trinidad & Toba2 18ay-98 - (1) 1999 75 Uganda UNDP $83,340 30-Jul-96 28-Dec-97 (1) 1997 76 Uzbekistan UNOP $325,00 N 2an-97H 4- 9 : (31996 77 Yemen UNDP $195,700 19-May-97 13-Aug-97 (2)1998 78 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-97 82 Comors UNEWP $310,000 6-Novi-9 13-Jan99 1777 Feb-99 83 Cote d'lvoire UNEP $327,000 ! 26-Mar-98 4-May-98 29-Mav-98 841 Diibouti - UNE P $310m 000 23-Nov-98 1f4-Mar99 7Ar9 85 Haiti _ UNEP $350,000 26-Jan-98 23-Apr-98 15-May-00 86 Kenv a UNEP = $172,800 27Ot98 025-Mr-99 1j0 5-Jul-99 i 87 Lesotho UNEP $350,000 4-Sep-96 30-Oct-96 3-Dec-96 88 Mauritarnia UNEP $350,000 22-Jul-97 2F- 6-Feb-98 89 Mauritius UNEP - $140,000 17-Jul-97 7-Aug-97 4-Sep-97 90 MOnoigbls UNE5p; - $239,500td 5 -Ocit-9 26-c9 18-Nv-98 91 Nepal UNEP $310,000 4-Mar-98 22-Jun-99 15-Apr-00 92 Niue LIUNEP $29000 29-Sep-97 12Nov-97 - 26-Nov-97 931 Pakistan UNEP - $274,000 2-Dec-98 7-Jan-99 2-Feb-99 94 South AfricaN $2000 1 -Jun-98 I 4-Oct-98 1| 6-oct-98:j4jjj 95 Tanzania UNEP - $254,000 17-Jul-97 25-Aug-97 18-Sep-97 96 Turkmenistan UNEP - $350,000 17-J- 8-Aug-97 1 ep-97 l 971Vietnam l UNEP l $212,500 6-Nov-98 3-Mar-99 8-Mar-99 98 Zamnbia NE $256 000 24-Ar-7 2Jn97 - 4ul7 99 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 two are each three months long. 88 Enabling Activity Projects Supported Under Non-Expedited Procedures NO Country IA Amount Oite i DOte 6f oiteioFltst : te of (US $) CEO Pro)et Dlsburment Subnmtssuon of Endorsem 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-97 2 Armenia _ JVOP $350,00C 16-0se-95 7 -a98 (31_ 1998 444ovto98 3 Botswana UNDP $350,000 14-Aug-96 5-Sep-96 (1)1997 4 Brazil UNOP $1,50,000 14-Jur-98 5-A&96 (1)- 1997 5 China World $2,000,000 PILOT Bank PHASE Costa Rica UNDP $467,200 7-Juin-96 7-A-98 ( . 199 19 7 Egypt UNDP $402,000 22-Apr-96 12-Jun-96 (1) 1997 8 India (INop $1,500,000 PILOT 6Mr9 PHASE 9 Jordan UNDP $242,000 17-Oct-95 21-Mar-96 (1) 1996 10 Malaysia UWNDP : $470,000 1Oe-96 30-Ooi-: :(-) :9-7 11 Maldives UNDP $863,600 4-Oct-96 1 6-Jan-97 (1) 1996 9-Dec-97 12 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-97 14 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 Projects Project IA Amount Date of CEO ApproV_ 1 Asia Least-Cost Greenhouse Gas Abatement Strategy (ALGAS) UNDP $9,500,000 PILOT PHASE 2 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 PHASE 4 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 PHASE 6 Ecnomics of Greenhouse Gas Umitation - Phase I UNEP $,o000,000 18t-an-98 7 Economics of Greenhouse Gas Limitation - Phase i1 UNEP $2,000,000 w Biidin Capact in the Maghreb . N p. $2,50000 PtiOT PHAE 9 Pacific Island Climate Change Assistance Proiect (PICCAP) UNDP $2,440,000 20-Mar-97 10 Building Capacity in sub-Saharan Afica UNUP -$2000,000 -LPILOT .HA Total $36,040,000 89 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects ANNEX 4 DOCUMENTS AND REFERENCES CONSULTED GEF DOCUMENTS 1. Operational Report On GEF Programs, June 30, 1999 2. Operational Strategy, February 1996 3. The World Bank and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Environment Department Papers, March 1995 4. Capacity Building Requirements for Global Environmental Protection, UNEP 5. The Costs of Adapting to Climate Change, GEF 6. Biodiversity, International Waters and the GEF, IUCN 7. 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 the Convention: Provision of Technical and Financial Support 2. FCCC/SBI/1999/MISC.2, National Communication from Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention, Preparation for the Review of Enabling Activities, Views of Parties with regard to the review of the Global Environment Facility NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS I . The Philippines Initial National Communication on Climate Change, December 1999 2. Republic of Nauru Response, First National Communication under UNFCCC, October 1999 3. Lebanon's First National Communication Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Republic of Lebanon, Ministry of Environment, 1999 4. Arab Republic of Egypt, Initial National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, July 1999 5. The Federated States of Micronesia, National Cormmunication prepared Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, October 1999 6. Cook Islands, Initial National Communication Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, October 1999 7. Kiribati Government, Initial National Communication under United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, September 1999 8. Revision of the First National communication Argentine Republic, October 1999 9. Vanuatu National Communication to the Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC, July 1999 10. Tuvalu Initial Communication Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, October 1999 11. Chile 1999, Primera Communicacion Nacional, CONAMA 12. Republic of Mauritius, Initial National Communication Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, April 1999 13. 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 the UNFCCC - 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, Desk Evaluation Report, UNEP, July 1995 5. Economics of Greenhouse Gas Limitations - Phase I: establishment of a methodological framework for Climate Change Mitigation Assessment, Evaluation Report, Emilio LaRovere, February 2000 UNDP 1. Building capacity in Sub-saharan Africa to respond to the UNFCCC, report on the final evaluation mission, November 1998 2. 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 to UNFCCC, April 2000 3. Extemal Evaluation of the concurrent phase of RETA 5592, "A study of Least-Cost GHG Abatement strategy (ALGAS)," July 1999 4. Report on Mid-term Evaluation of the project "Training Programme to support the implementation of the UNFCCC, CC:TRAIN II, March 1999 5. Terminal Report of the project "Training Programme to support the implementation of the UNFCCC, CC:TRAIN II, October 1999 REVIEW 1. 12 country-visit reports, March-June 2000 2. 4 country-study reports, March-June 2000 3. Meeting notes: GEFSEC, The World Bank, UINDP New York, UNEP, UNFCCC Secretariat, February 2000 4. Meeting notes from the 3-days team - retreat, May 2000 5. 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 projects 7. Synthesis Report on NCSP files and database, April 2000 8. Analysis of the survey undertaken by the review, May 2000 91 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects ANNEX 5 1996 CRITERIA AND 1997 GUIDELINES: COST NORMS 19:9 Crt4 197Gudlie Activity 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 $ 135,000 Preparation of Plan, including $ 30,000 - 40,000 Steps public awareness building (a) programs related to sustainable development, research, public awareness, etc. (b) policy options for monitoring systems and response strategies for impacts. (c) policy frameworks for implementing adaptation measures and response strategies. (d) building capacity to integrate climate change concerns into planning (e) programs to address climate change adverse impacts, incl. Abatement, sink enhancement. Preparation of national $15,000 - 20,000 Compilation and Production $15,000-20,000 Communication of Initial National Communication Total $ 200,000 - $ 350,000 Total u to $350,000 92 ANNEX 6 CRITERIA FOR REVIEWING CLIMATE CHANGE ENABLING ACTIVITY PROJECTS AS INCLUDED IN 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 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects ANNEX 7 ANNEXES INCLUDED IN OPERATIONAL CRITERIA FOR ENABLING ACTIVITIES - 1996 ANNEX A The Activity Matrix, to be included in each project proposal to summarize, in a concise way, the already existing capabilities in a country, the improvement envisaged through the proposed project, and the gaps remaining after project completion ANNEX B Enablement Plan and Appropriate Sequencing, containing guidelines on appropriate sequencing 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 8 ANNEXES 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 Communications Processed 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 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects ANNEX 9 PARAGRAPHS 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 conformity with, 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, as appropriate) incurred by developing country Parties in complying with their obligations under Article 12.1 and other relevant commitments under the Convention. In the initial period, emphasis should be placed on enabling activities undertaken by developing country Parties, such as planning and endogenous capacity building, including institutional strengthening, training, research and education, that will facilitate implementation, in accordance with the Convention, of effective response 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 10 NEEDS AND MAJOR PRIORITIES EXPRESSED BY THE BENEFICIARY COUNTRIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FUTURE EA PROJECTS The current review had the opportunity to con- * Development of more comprehensive and sult 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 to launched by the review, and the National Com- undertake relevant modeling exercises of munication 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 to surveys 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 and issues that are of priority for them and the gaps scenarios; that they would hope to fill in the future. The following issues are among the most commonly * Supporting wider dissemination of the listed:' technical studies (including intemation. ally) through translation of documents into Improvement of the quality of the infor- other relevant languages according to the mation related mainly to the GHG inven- countries' needs; tory, to the vulnerability, to the mitigation options, 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 and data 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? Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects * Meeting the international consultancy * Prepare the national capacities to deal needs 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 the day-by-day planning activities; 98 ANNEX 1 1 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE SURVEY UNDERTAKEN BY THE REVIEW Global Environment Facility 1818 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 information on climate change enabling activities as part of a review being undertaken by the Global Environmental Facility (GEF). The GEF is undertaking a review of climate change enabling activities supported by the Facility. This review is being undertaken at the request of the GEF Council. The Conference of the Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has specifically requested the GEF review to 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 enabling activity projects, assess their effectiveness and extract lessons for the future. The review, managed by the GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Unit, is being undertaken by an inter-agency taskforce comprised of staff members from the UNDP, IJNEP, the World Bank, and the GEF Secretariat, and led by an international consultant, Dr. Samir Amous. The review proposes to collect as much information as possible from a variety of sources, including desk review of project documents, country visits, country and regional case studies, and questionnaire surveys. Please answer the questions fully, according to your best knowledge and return the questionnaire to us in electronic format if possible, otherwise by any convenient means, such as fax, or mail. If you need to make further comments, please do so on the space provided underneath the questions, or attach an additional sheet if necessary. 99 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects When completing this questionnaire, we also suggest that you consult closely with the project director and other persons who have been involved with the project. This is particularly important if you are not familiar with the issues on all sections of the questionnaire. The National Communications Support Program (NCSP), being implemented by the UNDP and UNEP, has kindly volunteered to manage the survey on behalf of the review. Please return completed questionnaires to: Ms. Bo Lim, Ph.D. Chief Technical Advisor National Communications Support Programme UNDP-GEF Room 1607, 16 Floor 304 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Email: 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 Harstad Senior 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 initial Communications 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 to prepare 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 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects 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 or World 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 in implementation had been more funds allotted to itlthem (please feel free to modify if the categories do not match your specific project document ? Project Budget The suggested more appropriate budget Greenhouse Gas Inventories Vulnerability assessment Policy Frameworks for Implementing Adaptation Measures and Response Strategies Building Capacity to integrate Climate Change Concerns into Planning_ GHG Mitigation abatement strategy, sink enhancement Other Information, including emissions proFNctions Assesmet of Fiaca *- Technological XXeedX Compilation and Production of Initial National Communication Any 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 add any institution that is not in the list): 11.1. Main governmental departments Department 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 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects 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 address specific 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 additional assistance 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 related projects/programs? (Please say Yes or No or put NA if the project or program is not present in the country): 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 level enabling 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 7 If 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 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects 22.3 Strengthening of public awareness and development of network of constituencies on climate 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 as they 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 development 24.2 proposal review 24.3 start up 24.4 implementation 24.5 disbursement issues ? Please specify where relevant :. ..................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................... ............... ...................................................................................................... 25. Please list at least two most important lessons learned or/and any Good practice that helped you to address some difficulties during the project implementation (best if you can relate these to the problems in question above). 25.1 . 25.2 . 106 ANNEX 12 SYNTHESIS 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 the existing 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 to the preparation of the National Communication 2.3 The review should lead to a clearer understanding of the past project performance and help identify 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 the effects 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 by the GEF as to meet the COP guidance o How the process could be improved 107 Review of Climate Change Enabling Activity Projects * 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 project objectives and completing the project activities in a timely manner * Problems related to national level implementation by the implementing agencies which might have posed difficulty for Non Annex I Parties in the implementation of their commitment under the UNFCCC: o Consistency of actions taken by the LAs with the UNFCCC and COP decisions (with some 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 any difference * Consideration of any additional issue or concern identified by Non-Annex I Party in the implementation 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 National Communications into account (multilateral, bilateral) * The review should identify any needs for enabling activities as they might have been defined by the National Communications that were published so far * Quality of the outputs produced by the EA projects, including the activities that relate to National communications * Interaction between Enabling Activities and Economic Development Programmes of the recipient countries * Effectiveness of the integration of the policies and measures that were identified into the general development policies of the recipient countries 108 3. Compilation of the main issues addressed by the submissions that relate to the recommendations for the future 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 and implementation of the mechanisms under the Kyoto protocol and for increasing their capabilities to create new investment partnerships o Capacity building needed in validation, monitoring, verification, auditing, certification and registration of CDM projects o Development of Information Systems o Building capacity of the Non-Annex I Parties for participating in systematic observation networks o Develop, strengthen and improve national activities for public awareness and education on climate change o Maintaining and enhancing relevant national capacities o Translating, reproducing, disseminating and making the National Communications available electronically o Providing Support to institutional activities (e.g. national CC centres) 1 Also extracted from FCCC/SBUlI999/INF.1O 109 GEF Global Environment Facility 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA Telephone: 1(202)473-0508 Fax: 1(202)522-3240 Internet: www.gefweb.org Q Printed on recyled paper