Financing for National Communications

UNFCCC Workshop, Manila

Ravi Sharma United Nations Environment Programme – Global Environment Facility

The Second Round – What can we do better

 What have we learned from implementing the first national communications completed by majority of NA1 Parties  How will the GEF Implementing Agencies respond to NA1 Parties preparing the national communications based on revised COP Guidelines?

What are the operational issues



Availability of Technical Support



Technical backstopping



Desk reviews of sectoral drafts through roster of experts



Methods and tools inventory



Regional workshops



Involvement of regional/international experts and institutions

National Level



Improve project management and coordination at the national level



Need for more transparent and participatory management practices at national level



Need to involve more stakeholders such as NGOs, scientists and decision makers



Budget flexibility

Data Management



Lack of appropriate/quality data is a recurrent problem



Need to establish database that will allow easy updating of information on a regular basis



Better access to data and other information



More precision

Sustaining Capacity



Strengthen capacity that is already built.



Capacity-building and training should be maintained for all stakeholders



Urgent need for capacity-building and sustaining of relevant institutions



Support for follow-on projects

Weak Public and Policy Support



Institutional and public awareness of climate change issues low.



More awareness raising campaigns for policy makers needed.



Need to increase awareness of climate change impact through public awareness



Ensuring country drivenness and ownership



Retaining interest of other Deapartment

 Synergy

Lessons Learnt for IAs

 Reporting - Improved M&E  Capture of best practices  Linkages/synergies to other projects, e.g. NCSA, NAPAs, mitigation, MEAs

From COP Guidance to Operationalization Findings

Preparation of Operational Guidelines did not involve countries.

Recipient countries did not always interpret the GEF guidelines and the COP guidance along the same lines as the GEF.

Recommendations

GEF establish a better consultative process for formulation of next guidelines.

Greater precision in COP guidance and GEF guidelines. Guidelines be more flexible in future with respect to cost norms and activity matrix. Strong presumption regarding success of previously undertaken climate change related activities. Fuller assessment of quality of previously undertaken climate change related activities. Narrow interpretation of country drivenness. Project processing time of 188 days not expedited.

Appropriate stakeholder consultation and participation be part of “country drivenness” of proposals.

Remove bottlenecks at the two last milestones.

Implementation Issues Findings

Project implementation periods were too short.

Resources insufficient for sustainability of capacity building.

Budgetary resources for IAs inadequate. Demand on IAs for technical support higher than anticipated.

Countries reported frustration at lack of materials and software.

NCSP highly valued by countries.

Recommendations

Extend duration to 2.5 years to 3-3.5 years. Provide opportunities for exchanges through international seminars and workshops. New fee-based system to handle the issue. UNDP to provide country offices with greater technical expertise. UNEP to strengthen the use of quarterly report and develop a system of regular visits to countries. GEF and IAs to explore various possibilities for countries to access software. Merit in continuation of NCSP.

Project Results Findings

Project steering committees often functioned in an isolated manner.

Conflict between regional/global and national projects.

Sustainability of capacity created is in question.

Recommendations

Secure strong involvement at the highest political level; emphasize public awareness activities; encourage establishment or enhancement of national climate change committees; improve participation of NGOs and private sector. Differentiate roles and objectives: Regional/global projects to focus on information exchange and network support, training, development of methodologies; national projects to focus on preparation of reports to UNFCCC. A more strategic and long-term approach to enabling activities should be established. Data reliability needs to be improved Projects provide for a well established framework with appropriate tools and incentives towards creation and maintenance of national data bases.

Findings & Recommendations from OPS2 Findings

GEF has difficulty translating broad convention guidance into practical operational activities.

Need to ensure that priority country needs are met and convention guidance is reflected effectively.

Recommendations

In its dialogue with each convention that it supports, the GEF should regularly seek to update and clarify existing priorities and commitments in light of each new round of guidance it receives. The GEF should adopt a cautious approach to funding any new rounds of enabling activities to the same convention. All such activities must be assessed for their effectiveness in responding to convention guidance and to country needs. It is important to assess the use of national reports, national communications, and national action programs within the strategic frameworks for a country’s national sustainable development program and for GEF’s programming and project preparation activities. In this context, OPS2 also recommends that the GEF Council explore the feasibility of each country reporting directly to the appropriate convention on the effectiveness and results of GEF’s country-relevant support for both enabling activities and projects.

Sequence

      Process leading to development Eligibility of countries for support Stocktaking and Stakeholder Consultations Good Practices in Project Preparation Indicative Budget Transmittal of Outputs