Udenrigsudvalget 2013-14
URU Alm.del
Offentligt
Second session of the CouncilMinutes
Global Green Growth InstituteSecond session of the CouncilAbu Dhabi, 17 January 2013
Minutes for the second session of the CouncilThe second session of the Council of the Global Green Growth Institute (hereinafter, the“GGGI”)was held on 17 January 2013 from 9:15 to 18:00 at Capital Suite #5, Abu DhabiNational Convention Center, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.Members Present:Australia,represented by Mr. Sean Batten, Director, Sustainable Development FundsCosta Rica,represented by Dr. Rene Castro-Salazar, Minister for Environment, Energy andTelecommunicationsDenmark,represented by Mr. Peter Lysholt Hansen, Ambassador to the Republic of KoreaIndonesia,represented by Mr. Lukita Dinarsyah Tuwo, Vice Minister for National DevelopmentPlanningKiribati,represented by Mr. Pinto Katia, Minister of Commerce, Industry and CooperativesKorea,represented by Mr. Kim Sung-hwan, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Mr.Boonam Shin, Ambassador for Green GrowthMexico,represented by Mr. Santiago Lorenzo, Green Growth Advisor, Ministry of Environmentand Natural ResourcesNorway,represented by Mr.Øystein Djupedal, County Governor of Aust-Agder CountyQatar,represented by Ms. Machaille Al-Naimi, Legal Counsel, Qatar National Food SecurityProgrammeUnited Arab Emirates,represented by Dr. Sultan Al Jaber, Special Envoy and AssistantMinister of Foreign Affairs for Energy and Climate Change and Dr. Thani Al-Zeyoudi, Director,Department of Energy and Climate Change, Ministry of Foreign AffairsMr. Kim Sang-hyup,Senior Secretary to the President for Green GrowthMr. Lars Løkke Rasmussen,ChairMr. Richard Samans,GGGI Director-General
1
Second Session of the CouncilMinutesMembers Absent:EthiopiaMr. Montek Ahluwalia,Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission, Government of IndiaLord Nicholas Stern,IG Patel Professor of Economics & Government and Chair, Grantham ResearchInstitute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of EconomicsGuests:GGGI SecretariatAgenda:The following agenda items were proposed for the meeting in C/2/AG/1:Opening of the meetingAdoption of the agenda for the second session of the CouncilApproval of the minutes from the first session of the CouncilReport on the activities of the Transitional Sub-Committeea. Capacity building in the Headquartersb. Deputy Directors-General and Assistant Director-General recruitment update5. Updates regarding Member statesa. Ratification updateb. Headquarters Agreement with the Government of the Republic of Koreac. Privileges and immunities6. FY2013 Budget7. Regulationsa. Human Resourcesb. Procurement Rulesc. Delegation of Authorityd. Disclosure Policy8. Advisory Committee9. Sub-Committees of the Councila. Audit and Financeb. Programc. Facilitative10. Schedule for future sessions of the Council in 201311. Provisional agenda for next session of the Council12. Any other businessa. ODA eligibilityb. Headquarters premisesc. Presentation from Costa Rica13. Closing of the meeting21.2.3.4.
Second Session of the CouncilMinutesI. OPENING OF THE MEETINGChair Rasmussenopened the meeting and welcomed the members to the second session of theCouncil. He thanked the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for hosting the meeting and congratulated theUAE on an impressive World Future Energy Summit. He then invited Dr. Sultan Al Jaber of the UAEto take the floor.Dr. Sultan Al Jaberthanked the Chair for his kind remarks and congratulated the Republic of Koreaand the GGGI on the signing of the Headquarters Agreement just before. Dr. Al Jaber emphasized thatthe UAE has demonstrated a strong commitment to the ideals of green growth and that 2012 was a yearof significant achievements for the GGGI. He emphasized on the importance of enhancing thecapability of the GGGI regional office in Abu Dhabi and its potential to add real value to the region.
II. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA FOR THE SECOND SESSION OF THE COUNCILChair Rasmussenthanked Dr. Sultan Al Jaber for his remarks and moved to the agenda for themeeting, C/2/AG/1, which was accepted by the Council. He provided a brief explanation of theprocedural aspects of the meeting and explained that the decision packet provided to the Council is indraft form, to be revised in real-time by the Council during its discussions.
III. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE FIRST SESSION OF THE COUNCILChair Rasmussenthen moved to the third item on the agenda, C/2/DC/1, the approval of the minutesfrom the first session of the Council. He asked for any comments. The Council approved the minutesof the first session of the Council, C/2/1, and took note of the Chairman’s Summary of the first meetingof the Transitional Sub-Committee of the Council, C/2/2, and the Informal Gathering of the Council inDoha, C/2/3, by consensus.
IV. REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRANSITIONAL SUB-COMMITTEEChair Rasmussenmoved to the fourth item on the agenda, the Report on the activities of theTransitional Sub-Committee. He explained that the Transitional Sub-Committee had discussed theneed to build the capacity of the Seoul headquarters in such a way that GGGI’s deliverables are notcompromised. He also brought attention to the recruitments of the Deputy Directors-General and theAssistant Director-General. Chair Rasmussen then gave the floor to Director-General Samans forfurther elaboration.Director-General Samansthanked the Chair and welcomed the members to the session. In regards tocapacity building, the Director-General explained that the Transitional Sub-Committee had discussed aframework for the institutional evolution of the GGGI such that it will lead to a significant increase inthe capability of the Institute, and in particular the Seoul Headquarters, to execute the primary avenuesof the GGGI’s work. He continued that the discussions have focused on the basic emphasis of thesatellite offices. He explained that the Transitional Sub-Committee had concluded that the top priorityshould be to build the capacity of the Headquarters to execute and integrate work across the offices and3
Second Session of the CouncilMinutesfor Green Growth Planning and Implementation (GGP&I) to be progressively centralized in the SeoulHeadquarters.Director-General Samans continued that the GGGI has a globally integrated organizational structureand although there is a preponderance of personnel in the Seoul Headquarters, there is not apreponderance of the core expertise required to execute GGP&I work. He stated that the frameworkagreed upon by the Transitional Sub-Committee was to take steps over the next one to two years tocentralize activities in Seoul and for the Headquarters to become the repository of the knowledge andexecution capability of the organization.Chair Rasmussenasked for any questions or comments and stated that the Council would return tothis issue in the budget discussion to come. As there were no comments, the Chair moved to the issueof recruitment, explaining that the Transitional Sub-Committee had posted three positions: (1) DeputyDirector-General for GGP&I; (2) Deputy Director-General for Management and Administration; and(3) Assistant Director-General for Public-Private Cooperation. He stated that the deadline forapplications had been 3 January and the GGGI had received over 250 applicants. He explained that ofthese applicants, an eight-person shortlist had been compiled and these applicants have been invited tointerview at the Headquarters at the end of January. The Chair then gave the floor to the Director-General for further comments.Director-General Samansstated that because what the GGGI is trying to accomplish hasn’t yet beendone, the challenge lies in making judgments about what type of profiles will be most useful in acandidate, as there is no pre-selected pool of candidates that can be tapped into. He indicated that hefeels that a good team will be compiled. He also explained that the Transitional Sub-Committee hadcomposed a Selection Committee which included the Chair, Kim Sang-hyup, Australia (to berepresented by Ambassador Howard Bamsey) and himself as Director-General.Chair Rasmussenthanked him for his comments and asked for any questions or comments. He gaveNorway the floor.Norwaythanked the Chair and stated that it is looking forward to cooperation with the rest of theCouncil. Norway had no objections to the choices suggested by the Transitional Sub-Committeeregarding the recruitment process, but emphasized the importance of achieving gender balance in theGGGI’s top management. Norway continued that it was crucial for a development organization such asthe GGGI to make credible efforts to secure proper gender balance in its decision-making andexecutive bodies, and stated that in Norway, it is normal practice to have a minimum of 40 percent ofeach gender represented in the top management.Denmarkexpressed its pleasure at being in Abu Dhabi. Denmark echoed Norway’s commentsregarding gender balance, saying that although gender balance may not be achieved in one shot, it mustbe an important target that is worked towards and taken seriously.Indonesiastated that it was delighted to be at the meeting and was looking forward to working closelywith the members of the Council. Indonesia also expressed its strong commitment to green growth andthe GGGI.Indonesia supported the previously expressed views on gender balance and stated that it would like to4
Second Session of the CouncilMinutesreceive information on applicant profiles in order to select candidates that are in accordance withprinciples of gender balance. Indonesia expressed its hope that one of the three top managementcandidates currently being pursued would suit this profile.Costa Ricaasserted that in the past, the motto was‘thinkglobal, act local.’ More recently, however,the motto has changed to become‘thinklocal, act global.’ Costa Rica continued that domestically, itwas pursuing 50-50 gender balance and added its support to Norway, Denmark and Indonesia in favorof gender balance in the GGGI’s top management.Chair Rasmussenstated that he shares in the goal of achieving gender balance and that this was anissue emphasized in the Transitional Sub-Committee. He continued that although this was a goal, it isnot always possible to achieve, particularly in a single step, and pointed out that the Council membersthemselves did not represent a gender balance. The Chair informed the Council that gender balancewould be difficult to achieve in the current selection process. He asked the Director-General toelaborate on this issue.Director-General Samansbegan by saying that the candidate pool was heavily weighted towardsmale applicants and estimated that only about 15 percent of the candidates were female. He stated thatone shortlist candidate was female.The Director-General continued that one of the benefits of having a search for a top team is that a greatdeal of talent is uncovered which may not be ready for a top leadership role at the moment, but canpotentially help build the organization at the level directly below. He stated that in this regard, 30 to 40percent of the applicants fitting this profile were women. He continued that the leadership team shouldbe thought of in broader terms than only three individuals, and by engaging a senior tier beyond themanagement at the very top, GGGI may be able to work towards achieving greater gender balance andprovide career mobility to those individuals at this level.Denmarkstated that if there were no qualified candidates who can contribute towards gender balanceavailable, then of course gender balance becomes difficult to achieve. Denmark continued that whilethis may be the case, the Secretariat needs to engage in affirmative action and groom female staff sothat, in a reasonably short period of time, females would also be in the higher management levels. Tothis end, Denmark suggested that the Secretariat be requested to report regularly on what actions werebeing taken to achieve gender balance.Chair Rasmussenstated that he would take note of Denmark’s suggestion and that it would be hisresponsibility as Chair to ensure that this issue is returned to.Norwaysupported Denmark’s suggestion to return to the issue of gender balance on a regular basisand to have the Director-General report on how gender balance is being incorporated into therecruitment process into the future.Chair Rasmussenrestated that he would take note of these suggestions and ensure that this issue isreturned to on a regular basis and discussed, on the basis of a report from the Director-General.
5
Second Session of the CouncilMinutesV. UPDATES REGARDING MEMBER STATESChair Rasmussenmoved to the updates regarding member states, which included documents C/2/4,C/2/5 and C/2/DC/2. He began with C/2/4, the ratification update. He recognized Korea to speak.Koreaexplained that during the ratification process in the National Assembly, the opposition partyhad requested that Kim Sang-hyup resign as a member of the Council. Korea stated that Kim Sang-hyup had expressed his intention to comply with the opposition’s request.Chair Rasmussenthanked Korea for working so hard to ratify the treaty prior to its presidentialelection in December 2012.In regards to Kim Sang-hyup’s intention to resign, the Chair expressed his personal view that Mr.Kim’s contributions to the Council are crucial and he hoped that Mr. Kim would decide to remain onthe Council in his non-state actor capacity. He continued that as GGGI is still in a transitional period inits conversion to an international organization, it still required Mr. Kim’s contributions and that it wasthe responsibility of the Council to make a judgment that enhances the interests of the GGGI as aninternational organization. The Chair stated that the Council should do its utmost to persuade Mr. Kimto remain as a member of the Council.Australiasupported the contributions made by Mr. Kim to GGGI thus far and hoped thesecontributions would continue.Costa Ricastated that the Council should convince Mr. Kim to remain as a member.Chair Rasmussenconcluded that based on the statements from Australia and Costa Rica and themanner of the Council, it was the consensus of the Council for Mr. Kim to remain as a member.Koreastated that the government would respect the decision made by the Council.Kim Sang-hyupthanked the Council for their kind words and stated that what is good for the GGGI isgood for him.Australiastated that it also strongly supports the notion of gender balance. In regards to theratification process, Australia will be having an election in mid-2013 and this will likely cause a delayin ratification. Because of this, Australia expects to be able to ratify in late 2013.Indonesiainformed the Council that it was currently in process of ratification and this process isexpected to take a couple of months. Indonesia continued that despite the ongoing ratification process,the Indonesian government is ready to work closely with the GGGI and enhance cooperation.Norwayshared that it expects ratification to occur before the summer, most likely May or June.Costa Ricastated that its Congress would resume on 21 January and that once Congress resumes, itwould be able to provide a realistic date to expect ratification.
6
Second Session of the CouncilMinutesChair Rasmussenthanked the members for their updates and asked the Director-General to providesome comments on the Headquarters Agreement with the Republic of Korea, C/2/5.Director-General Samansexplained that the GGGI had been provided the level of privileges andimmunities that is customary for officials of international organizations and diplomatic missions. Heexplained that this includes such things as the inviolability of the organization’s premises, exemptionfrom censorship on materials and communication, legal protections, and tax exemptions. He continuedthat this Agreement covers Council members and experts on mission in a limited form.Chair Rasmussenthanked Korea for its strong efforts to reach an agreement on the headquarterswithin a few months’ time. He then moved to the Decision on Privileges and Immunities, C/2/DC/2,and asked the Director-General to provide further information.Director-General Samansinformed the Council that the GGGI had been advised to secure, in aconsistent manner, certain privileges and immunities, particularly in countries where the GGGI has apresence. He continued that in order to have a more efficient process, the GGGI was recommended todevelop a generic baseline for a privileges and immunities framework that would serve as the basis fordiscussions with various governments.The Director-General explained that the proposed decision before the Council was to endorse theGGGI to begin a process of consultations to structure such a generic framework for privileges andimmunities. He also indicated that the GGGI would place a priority on those countries in which it haseither a satellite office or significant country engagement.Chair Rasmussenasked for any questions or comments.Australiasupported the Director-General’s plan to prioritize consultations with those member states inwhich GGGI has a presence. He asked whether the decision should be amended to reflect the emphasison key members.Indonesiashared Australia’s view that the consultations be prioritized.Chair Rasmussenthanked the members for their comments and moved the proposal to decision. TheCouncil approved the decision, by consensus.
VI. FY2013 BUDGETChair Rasmussenmoved to the decision on the FY2013 budget, C/2/DC/3. He reminded the Councilthat it had approved the Q1 FY2013 budget in the first session of the Council and that the Councilwould now be deciding on the remainder of the FY2013 budget. The Chair continued that several ofthe items that the budget touches upon, such as the strategy, capacity building, etc., would be furtherdiscussed later in the session as well. He asked the Director-General to provide opening remarks forthe budget before moving to a presentation from the CFO.Director-General Samansintroduced CFO Joya to the Council for those members who had not methim previously and then began to provide some contextual comments to place the budget and work7
Second Session of the CouncilMinutesprogram in strategic context.The Director-General began by explaining that the budget has been designed to implement the strategyas explained in the three-year Strategic Plan. The budget is a results-based budget, designed to achievethe GGGI’s fundamental goal and purpose to develop and pioneer a new green growth paradigm bysupporting the emergence of a critical mass of successful examples that convincingly demonstrate thatgreen growth is both feasible and desirable. He explained that the budget is intended to support theobjective of having 10 to 15 countries, from a diversity of geographies and economic profiles,demonstrate that it is possible to design a core economic development strategy that achieves highgrowth, employment expansion and strong environmental performance. He continued that all aspectsof the GGGI, from Research to Public-Private Cooperation to International Cooperation toManagement and Administration, are focused on achieving this goal.He continued that the budget conforms to the strategy in terms of resource allocation as well. Heexplained that over two-thirds of the program resources in the budget were designated for GGP&I,with 15 percent designated for Research and a lower amount designated for Public-Private Cooperationsince it is still at an earlier stage of development.The Director-General stated that the criteria for the selection of countries consisted of: strong, high-level political commitment; a requirement that the work be aligned with the GGGI’s strengths, and thatthe GGGI has a preference for comprehensive, whole-of-economy or major economic sectors as thefocus of its work; and the scale of potential economic, social and environmental impact. The GGGIalso seeks to be a partner to these countries, becoming a neutral, trusted advisor. He stated that theportfolio and work scope conform to this principle.He continued that this fundamental strategy of the GGGI implies that the country portfolio should bediverse in the following respects: geography; level of income; and typologies of economies. Thecurrent GGGI portfolio reflects this principle of the Strategic Plan. He also reminded the Council thatshould an additional opportunity arise in a country the GGGI is currently operating in that is not a partof the approved annual budget, the Secretariat is required to come back to the Council for approvalbefore moving on such a project.In regards to Research, the Director-General noted that a number of projects were approved in theStrategic Plan. One such project is Green Growth Tools and Methodology. The Director-General statedthat a substantial investment was being made in this year’s budget to build both an internalmethodology and tools as well as to support the emergence of an open-source platform that engagessome of the world’s best models in an open process of access. There are also policy initiatives beingdeveloped, as well as technology.In regards to Public-Private Cooperation, the Director-General reminded the Council that this is a two-fold effort: (1) to help countries translate their policy into investment cases and investment pathways;and (2) to shift the policy debate so that there is a better international enabling environment for privatesector engagement into green growth.The Director-General added that internal capacity-building is a key element of the Strategic Plan andthe budget. In terms of overall numbers, the Director-General stated that the current proposal projectsthe budget to come to about 46 or 47 million dollars. He stated that benchmarking had also been done8
Second Session of the CouncilMinutesto ensure that the GGGI is building a structure that is sustainable and consistent with expectations interms of what is required to have impact on the ground without placing too heavy of a burdenadministratively.The Director-General then asked CFO Joya to present an overview of the budget.CFO Joyaexplained that as the GGGI is currently in its second year of the Strategic Plan, the currentbudget proposal keeps in the same style as the FY2012 budget that was approved by the former Boardof the Organization but puts a greater focus on results as the main driver of resource allocation. Hecontinued that the budget will be used as a tool for accountability to monitor expenditures againstresults to be achieved. Further, as GGGI’s results will be delivered through its country projects, thebudget proposal is designed to be read in conjunction with the included budget background paper(C/2/6), which details the objectives of each country project and the expected outcomes. Lastly, theresults-based budget framework will need to be formalized via financial regulations and its executionmonitored by key performance indicators and to this end, the FY2013 budget allocated 340 thousanddollars to initiate the ERP process.CFO Joya explained that exhibit 1 of the first document in C/2/6, the‘GGGIResults-Based Budget2013,’ shows GGGI’s corporate budget envelope and its breakdown into the five main areas ofbusiness: GGP&I, Research, Public-Private Cooperation (PPC), International Cooperation andManagement and Administration on the basis of results to be achieved. He explained that over 80percent of the resources allocated would be to the three main pillars of GGP&I, Research and PPC. Hecited 53 million dollars as the maximum budget envelope, assuming that all projects are implemented,included those currently in the scoping phases.CFO Joya continued to exhibit 2, which showed a more conservative budget envelope estimate ofapproximately 47 million dollars and the same project composition and resource allocation, leaving adifference of approximately 6 million dollars between the numbers provided in exhibits 1 and 2. Thisdifference is due to the forecasted probability of project implementation, CFO Joya explained,assuming that the country programs achieve an implementation rate of 85 percent and those in thescoping phases will achieve a level of 60 percent.CFO Joya explained that exhibit 3 focuses on the GGP&I budget envelope, excluding projects still inthe scoping stages. This exhibit also provided two charts, one showing the maximum budget, assumingall projects are delivered, and the other showing the estimate, assuming projects are implemented at arate of 85 percent, he explained.Exhibit 4 shows scoping stage projects, CFO Joya explained. He continued that assuming eightprojects in total for the year, the left-hand side chart provides the maximum budget, assuming all eightscoping stage projects are delivered, and the right-hand side shows the more conservative budgetscenario. However, he said, this figure cannot currently be determined as it is highly dependent on theprogress made in these projects, which have a high level of uncertainties.Exhibit 5 shows the research project envelope, consisting of 13 projects in total and CFO Joyaproposed a budget of 7 million dollars.Exhibit 6 shows the PPC budget envelope, and CFO Joya proposed a budget of 3.3 million dollars to9
Second Session of the CouncilMinutessupport the 7 projects in PPC.In regards to International Cooperation, exhibit 7 shows the budget and the Department’s 7 mainactivities, CFO Joya explained.He continued that exhibit 8 gives the proposed Management and Administration budget envelope,including 340 thousand dollars for the first phase of ERP, which represents about 6 percent of thebudget envelope.Exhibit 9 is a display of the staffing level evolution from 2012 through 2014, he said. He explainedthat the Strategic Plan indicates that the staff should number 140 in total by the end of 2013, but theactual projection is to have 138 staff members. CFO Joya indicated that this means the GGGI will lookto deliver more with fewer resources and stated that this is a good indication.CFO Joya continued to exhibit 10, GGGI’s outsourcing ratio. He stated that the GGGI would like toshift its dependence on outsourcing to be more internalized by increasing internal capacity.Exhibit 11 provides a chart that attempts to forecast revenue and new funding for the year, heexplained. CFO Joya stated that an estimated 49 million dollars would be received through corefunding, representing about 70 percent of new funding, with the remaining 30 percent coming in theform of project funding. CFO Joya explained that if this projection is combined with the estimated 5 to6 million dollar carry-over from 2012, the proposed budget envelope is 53 million dollars.CFO Joya moved to exhibit 12, which shows budget allocation in terms of the five main areas ofbusiness and major expenditure categories.Exhibit 13, CFO Joya explained, illustrates the GGGI’s commitment to development activities and tothis end 33 million dollars will be allocated to GGP&I and, specifically, allocated to developingcountries to support their green growth strategies. He continued that this is also important strategicallyas the GGGI makes its application for ODA eligibility.Exhibit 14 shows the results-based budget framework, the CFO stated. He explained that the Director-General distributes accountability in delivering results among the executive team, including the CFO.This accountability continues to the director-level. The executive team is responsible for achievingresults under the guidance of the Director-General, who is responsible to the Council. CFO Joyacontinued that the CFO will act as an anchor in this framework to coordinate and monitor the budgetprocess to ensure that accountability remains with each budget holder and to ensure that there is noshift of budget or expenses between different envelopes. Flexibility also needs to be ensured so thatbudgets can be reprioritized within the same budget envelope, he said.In terms of next steps, CFO Joya explained that the results-based budget needs to be formalizedthrough financial regulations. He added that key performance indicators (KPI) need to be developed inorder to closely monitor and evaluate performance and results. The results-based budget frameworkshould also be rationalized and automated in order to work more efficiently and effectively, heconcluded.
10
Second Session of the CouncilMinutesDirector-General Samansremarked that the presentation thus far had been an outline of how thebudget had been constructed to implement the Strategic Plan for FY2013. He continued that in termsof internal capacity building, there will be a net additional increment of about 70 staff members acrossthe different Offices, with the majority, about 40, in the Seoul Headquarters. Of the 40 staff membersprojected to be in Seoul, a significant number are at the senior level, he said.In regards to GGP&I, the Director-General continued, about 80 percent of the team is currently basedin Seoul and another 23 members are expected to be added this year across the Offices, with themajority being in Seoul. He stated that the staff trajectory for London, while seeing a slight increasethis year, is expected to plateau over the next year to 18 months. He added that at that time, thecomposition of the employees in London will shift to research, as per the decision of the TransitionalSub-Committee.The Director-General clarified that the capacity building data refers to regular employees only, notshort-term or consultant-based hires.Chair Rasmussenasked the Director-General why only one Deputy-Director General was indicated inexhibit 2, when two Deputy Directors-General were currently being sought.Director-General Samansclarified that exhibit 2 shows only the GGP&I and Research departmentsand within this area, there will only be one Deputy-Director General appointed.Chair Rasmussenopened the floor for comments and questions and recognized Denmark to speak.Denmarkexpressed that although the background packet provided a great deal of information, itwould still like to see a“real”budget. By this, Denmark clarified that it meant a detailed andtransparent budget that allows the Council to engage in strategic discussions moving forward.Denmark elaborated that it would like to see, for example, what the budget allocations are between theHeadquarters and satellite Offices in terms of total activities, country programs and scoping andpersonnel, including short-term personnel.Denmark continued that while flexibility in the budget is good, the Council needs to know what isactually happening within the budget. For example, what are the expansion plans for the Headquartersand satellite Offices in regards to program responsibility? Here, Denmark pointed out the differencebetween the management of programs being done at the Seoul Headquarters while the actualimplementation may be carried out in one of the satellite offices.With these concerns, Denmark stated that it cannot approve the presented budget on the backgroundinformation it currently had and suggested that the Secretariat compose a detailed budget, taking intoconsideration the comments put forward by the Council.UAEcommented that it needed to know the rationale behind estimating the FY2013 budget based onboth the budget envelope and the expected actual expenditures. The UAE asked that since thedifference between the two budgets is more than 6 million dollars, why not consider only the actualexpenditure?In regards to staffing, the UAE commented that there will be a significant increase in the number of11
Second Session of the CouncilMinutesstaff this year and that this increase in staffing should reflect the geographical diversity andrepresentation of all member states. The UAE continued that it would also like to have moreinformation on the London Office, as the background materials provide information about the othersatellite Offices and their budgets.Koreacommented that the budget should be based on the forecasted actual expenditures. Koreacontinued that as the Secretariat had provided two budgets in its proposal, it was not clear which one ofthe two budgets the Council was considering for approval.Korea further commented that it was not certain whether the FY2013 budget actually reflected andimplemented previous Council decisions regarding the budget, in terms of capacity building in theHeadquarters, comprehensive human resources and recruiting policies and efficient Management andAdministration.Korea continued that in regards to scoping projects, there was a lack of explanation on the reasons andrationale behind why particular regions and countries were selected for scoping projects. Korea feltthat the regional distribution in these projects is unbalanced and suggested that the Program Sub-Committee discuss the country selection criteria in its meetings.Korea commented that the background information provided on the satellite offices currently showsonly the budget and expected programs for the London Office but lacks such detailed information forthe Seoul Headquarters and other regional Offices and it would like to see this information. Koreawould also like more information on how the budget will be distributed among the Headquarters andthree regional Offices.Norwaystated that this was the first budget it had seen with so few details on the actual priorities thatthe Council is to decide upon. Norway continued that a typical budget would show the amount ofmoney available and the amount used, presented in such a way so that the Council, who is not involvedon a day-to-day basis, is able to set actual priorities based on the details provided.Norway further commented that while the Secretariat had provided a good presentation, the budgetitself was not transparent. Norway expressed its concern over this lack of transparency, as the GGGI isfunded by public tax money. Norway continued that without better knowledge and details, it was notready to make a decision on this budget and the priorities it sets out. This lack of knowledge, Norwaycontinued, caused it to feel that it did not know what the practical decisions would be and theirimplications.Costa Ricacalled attention to the fact that while the Council was starting to have a sense of how thebudget would look, it was insufficient. Costa Rica stated that it would like to have more detailed andtransparent information and that the Council is interested in having a say and controlling the prioritiesfollowed by the administration.Costa Rica continued that it agreed with the Director-General’s earlier statements regarding the intentbehind resources and how they are used, but that it would be interested in adding the theoreticaldiscussion of extractive economies versus non-extractive economies. Costa Rica continued that thiswas because all of the examples that the GGGI had selected in Latin America are extractive economiesliving fiscally from the extraction of natural resources. Costa Rica put forth that the discussion may be12
Second Session of the CouncilMinutesricher if other types of examples were presented as well, and that this tied back into the discussion onthe country selection process.Indonesiacommented that while this was called a“results-basedbudget,” it hadn’t seen what theexpected result was for the budget in each of the GGGI’s efforts in terms of capacity building andprograms.Australiacommented that it may soon be time to hear responses from the Director-General and CFO.Australia stated that while it found the presentation strong on the consistency of the overall budget planwith the Strategic Plan, there was near unanimity amongst the Council members around the need forfurther detail. However, Australia continued, while further details were required it was also importantfor speed of progress to be maintained in the GGGI and that the need for detail should not impede theprogress of the Institute. Australia further commented that, like Indonesia, it too would like to see amore results-focused budget.Chair Rasmussenreminded the Council that the budget they were currently discussing was theproposed budget for FY2013 only, and as it was already mid-January and the next Council sessionwould not be held until June, not approving the budget at all would put the organization in aproblematic situation. He gave the floor to the Director-General.Director-General Samansagreed with the Council’s suggestions that more detail be included in thebudget. However, he noted that the narrative attached to the budget document provided much moredetail on individual projects in GGP&I and Research, while comparatively thin detail was provided forthe International Cooperation and Management and Administration portions of the budget. TheDirector-General asserted that this is a transitional issue in the sense that in other organizations, it iscommon for sub-committees to delve deeper into issues and provide guidance to the full board orcouncil, and for that full council or board to then give final approval. But in the case of the GGGI, sub-committees still have not been established and so the current document was at a much moresummarized level. He also cited other international organizations such as IRENA and IFAD thatprovide narrative budgets to their Councils for approval.Director-General Samans continued that this is also a transitional issue in that the teams required to puttogether the budget and documents were the same teams that were required to compose the regulationsand policies also being considered by the Council. Furthermore, he continued, this work was done by astill skeletal team over the holiday period.He continued that if the budget did not conform with the Strategic Plan, there would be cause forconcern at a fundamental level. As this was not the case, he said, it was hoped that there was, atminimum, a fundamental basis of comfort for the Council in regards to the direction of theorganization.Director-General Samans then commented that the rationale behind displaying an actual expenditureversus budget envelope was that the GGGI is still building its core portfolio and therefore, it requiredmore of an R&D approach to the budget. He continued that if a cap were placed on the budget, giventhe number of uncertainties involved in a project, the GGGI would be locking itself into a lower levelof activity than may be desirable. He further elaborated that in order to avoid having a low utilizationrate, management needs to have latitude to manage towards a higher utilization rate and the ability to13
Second Session of the CouncilMinutesengage in due diligence and innovation while still coming in under the estimated budget total. TheDirector-General stated that management is committed to operating at the actual budget level, butneeds scope within the budget to be able to engage in due diligence that, in many cases, will result in adecision not to proceed.He continued that in regards to the budget format, the format was the same as the format used in priorBoard meetings of the Organization when approving the budget. While this was not a reason to becontent with the current budget format, he stated, this format was not without precedent.In regards to capacity building, the Director-General commented that the budget remains faithful to theTransitional Sub-Committee’s decision to invest heavily and principally in the Seoul Headquarters. Heexplained that short-term employees, such as consultants, compose a much smaller portion of theoverall human resources and therefore would not vary the basic proportions significantly. He furtherasserted that the true barometer of whether the on-going capacity of the organization is being built isthe employees invested in on an on-going basis, not short-term employees.The Director-General continued that the GGGI can continue to engage in its project work whiledeveloping two things: (1) more specific information in the budget; and (2) developing a budget formatthat the Council finds satisfactory. Further detail can also be added, he said, as the Audit and Financeand Program Sub-Committees are established and begin to work with the Secretariat.Chair Rasmussenstated that he is in agreement with the comments made by Norway previouslyregarding clarity and transparency. He continued that he views the Council as budget holder level one.He stated that the CFO will give a presentation on ERP, which is vital to ensure that the budget isfulfilled in reality. He also cited discussions regarding procurement, human resource policy, delegationof authority and the organizational structure as being interlinked with the budget and stated that thiscreates a sort of paradox, as these issues have yet to be discussed by the Council.The Chair continued that some kind of approval was required on the budget, as FY2013 has alreadybegun. He suggested that the proposed budget be approved on an interim basis until the next session ofthe Council. He continued that he would also suggest that the Council request the Secretariat to presentan outline of a detailed and transparent budget for FY2013 and budget outlines for FY2014 andFY2015 to the Facilitative Sub-Committee1at its meeting at the end of the month. He requested thatbudget outlines for FY2014 and FY2015 be included in order to show how the potential savings tocome from the difference in projected and actual expenditures would be dealt with and accounted for.Chair Rasmussen suggested that the Secretariat be requested to submit to the Facilitative Sub-Committee, by mid-March, a detailed budget for 2013 and that the document be shared with the fullCouncil. Following comments from the Council, he said, a revised FY2013 budget would be submittedby 1 May to the Council for final approval either via written procedure or at the next session. Heemphasized the importance of the Council having ownership of the budget and its role as budget holderlevel one.He continued that the Council should request the Secretariat to develop a budget format for FY2014 in1
The Transitional Sub-Committee held a meeting on 1 February 2013, not the Facilitative Sub-Committee.
14
Second Session of the CouncilMinutescooperation with the Audit and Finance Sub-Committee, including deadlines for the annual budgetprocess, to be presented to the Council for consideration at its next meeting. He also felt that it wasimportant to establish a procedure which enables the Council to provide its input to the budget andapprove the budget for the coming year in the fourth quarter of the current year.The Chair stated that he agreed with the Director-General that the background papers regarding theprograms were quite detailed and that compared to the previous year’s budget documents, these werevery improved.Kim Sang-hyupcommented that he believes the GGGI will be one of the most importantorganizations in the 21stcentury, but in order to realize this belief, the Secretariat and Council shouldhave a shared vision and sense in regards to the strategic direction of the Institute. He continued that itseems there is an information and perception gap between the Secretariat and the Council and that theCouncil does not have sufficient information and a sufficient sense of the GGGI’s direction. He statedthat it appears that the Secretariat does not pay enough attention to the concerns and worries of theCouncil and that it worries him that similar situations are happening repeatedly. He continued that aproper mechanism must be found to strengthen the links and understanding between the Council andSecretariat, because if such unnecessary misunderstandings and misperceptions are not resolved, theGGGI’s direction will lose meaning.Chair Rasmussencalled for a break.[Break]Chair Rasmussencalled the meeting to order and presented his proposal on the FY2013 budgetdecision, based on the discussions held prior to the break. He asked for any comments from theCouncil.Norwaystated that it supported the proposal from the Chair. Norway continued that it hoped that inthe years to come, the Sub-Committees would be able to do much of the detailed work and the Councilwould be able to concentrate on the overarching lines of the organization.Koreacommented that the Chair’s proposal was balanced and that it was supported by Korea. Koreaalso requested that the Secretariat provide the Council with concrete information about the entirebudget, and in particular, the project budget.Denmarkfound the Chair’s proposal acceptable because it provides a process by which the Councilwill be presented with a budget which reflects the requirements of each member’s home government.Denmark expressed its expectation that the final budget presented by the Secretariat will reflect theviews of the Council.Chair Rasmussenstated that before taking a final decision, the CFO would present the ERP proposalbecause it would be a part of the interim budget, should it be approved by the Council. He added thatthe discussion would continue after lunch and thanked the UAE for arranging a lunch for the Council.UAEthanked the Chair and explained where the lunch would be held.15
Second Session of the CouncilMinutes[Lunch]Chair Rasmussenreopened the meeting and asked the CFO to present on the proposal for ERPimplementation before the Council reached a conclusion regarding the FY2013 budget.CFO Joyabegan by explaining that ERP has overarching implications on how GGGI will conduct itswork going forward. He continued that this means conducting work through rules, regulations, andpolicies and the rationalization and automation of business processes so that work and informationflow is more efficient and effective.CFO Joya asked the Council to recall that in the Inaugural meetings of the Council, it had approved 30thousand dollars to scope the current status of GGGI’s business process. A consulting company hadbeen hired to conduct this scoping project in December 2012, revealing three observations, the CFOexplained.CFO Joya explained that one observation was that currently, there are no common policies andprocedures for items that affect the organization at all levels, such as budget, finance, procurement,human resources and travel. A second observation was that work flow is not consistent throughout theorganization, and the third observation was that GGGI’s IT infrastructure is not secure or reliableenough to integrate and automate its business process, CFO said. He provided the process of receivingand processing disbursement requests as an example of a process that is inefficient and difficult toprocess.The CFO stated that while ERP is very important, in many cases, many ERP projects are failures.Therefore, he explained, it is important that the key success factors to implementing ERP areidentified. The CFO identified key elements to be: (1) strong commitment from the Council, Director-General and senior management; (2) a well-documented and well-planned ERP implementationroadmap; (3) a well-developed documentation process for policies and procedures; (4) a clearlydefined IT organization and infrastructure; and (5) key talent needs to be mobilized to drive theproject.The CFO then provided an ERP implementation roadmap to the Council. He stated that“sequence”is akey success element and comes through policies and procedures, and therefore different key policiesand procedures need to be developed. He continued that based on the documentation of anddevelopment of policies and procedures, the next step is ERP implementation, meaning that GGGI’swork should become more efficient through further rationalization and automation of businessprocesses.The CFO continued that the GGGI is currently beginning to build the platform for ERPimplementation and is focused on the development and documentation of policies and procedures.In addition, the CFO continued, the proposed budget to implement the two phases of ERP isapproximately 340 thousand dollars. He added that following the successful outcome of the first phase,the Secretariat would return to the Council with a proposal for additional budget to provide for thesecond phase.The CFO then described some of the expected benefits of the ERP process, such as increased16
Second Session of the CouncilMinutesproductivity as a result of common policies and procedures, improved information sharing and dataintegrity, greater organizational integration, more transparent and effective financial management,more robust decision-making procedures and an improvement in risk management capability.CFO Joya explained that the main areas in which policies and procedures need to be developed anddocumented are finance, procurement, human resources, budget, travel and delegation of authority. Hefurther elaborated that as travel accounts for approximately 80 percent of the total budget, addressingtravel policies and procedures is key to supporting in-country operations and this is expected to becovered through financial regulations.Chair Rasmussenthanked the CFO for his presentation and commented that the CFO and his staffhave a heavy workload in front of them because so many aspects of the organization are involved inimplementing the ERP system. He asked whether the GGGI would be creating a tailor-made ERPsystem or a mix of various off-the-shelf systems. He continued that there is a tendency that, if one isnot focused, IT system development can become very costly. The Chair also clarified that the budget,if adopted in interim form, would allocate resources for the first step of the ERP process.CFO Joyaexplained that the GGGI would purchase an off-the-shelf system in order to keepcustomization to a minimum, because the ERP system would need to be updated every two to threeyears and less customization allows for easier updates and is therefore more practical. He added thatthe system would be tailored to GGGI policies and procedures but kept to a minimum.Chair Rasmussenasked for any comments or questions and hearing none, proceeded to the decisionon the FY2013 budget. The Chair stated that the earlier discussion held regarding what the baseline forthe budget is, the budget envelope or the estimated expenditure, is precisely why this budget needs tobe developed in greater detail and these questions should be answered in a more precise way as thenext session of the Council approaches. The Council decided to adopt the proposed FY2013 budgetwith the revised provisions, C/2/DC/3, by consensus.
VII. REGULATIONSChair Rasmussenthen moved to the Decision on Human Resources Staff Regulations, C/2/DC/4. Heexplained that while there will be further discussions on additional regulations at a later time, today theCouncil would be deciding upon the Human Resources Staff Regulations, procurement, delegation ofauthority and the Disclosure Policy. He invited the Director-General to speak on the Human ResourcesStaff Regulations.Director-General Samansreferred the Council to the Human Resources Staff Regulations, C/2/7,explaining that they had been benchmarked against other international organizations and with outsideassistance and expert advice. He invited Kristen Son, Senior Program Manager of the HumanResources Department, to speak on the Human Resources Staff Regulations.Kristen Sonexplained that the Human Resources Staff Regulations outline the basic principles ofHuman Resources policy and extensive benchmarking against other international organizations, suchas IRENA, had been conducted. She clarified that should the Council approve the current HumanResources Staff Regulations, the Director-General would create more detailed and comprehensive staff17
Second Session of the CouncilMinutesrules to be submitted to the Council at a later date.She continued that the Council would have the opportunity to amend the rules. She added that salarylevels, categories and grades had all been discussed and approved at the last Transitional Sub-Committee meeting and the Staff Regulations reflect this.Chair Rasmussenasked for any questions or comments from the floor.Denmarkasked whether and to what extent the Staff Regulations had been discussed with the GGGIstaff because it should be a comprehensive process involving various staff groups so that all points ofview are taken into consideration.Denmark continued that on regulation 4.3 regarding tax reimbursements, this was a topic that stillrequired square brackets as a placeholder since this issue had not been settled yet. In regards toregulation 5.3, Denmark reemphasized the issue of gender balance and stated that adjustments wouldneed to be made to ensure the GGGI has a proactive policy for ensuring gender balance.Denmark added that in terms of the bonus system, it was Denmark’s understanding that all members ofthe executive would be part of a simple bonus system developed based on a draft from the Secretariat.This also means, Denmark continued, that the salary system and bonuses should be approved by theCouncil as well.Denmark asked how the performance of personnel would be evaluated.Koreaasked whether the IRENA regulations that had been benchmarked were the regulations for theIRENA Preparatory Commission or if they had been benchmarked against IRENA’s current policies.Korea expressed its concern over the principle of checks and balances in the top management, statingthat it feels too much authority is given to the Director-General and too little to the Deputy Directors-General.Kristen Sonresponded that in regards to internal communication on staff regulations, several meetingshad been held with senior management and the Management Committee. She clarified that the issue oftax reimbursement still had not been resolved and it was on the agenda for the upcoming TransitionalSub-Committee meeting. The bonus system, she stated, was approved by the Transitional Sub-Committee and was up to 10 percent, based upon the performance evaluation.She continued that IRENA’s current regulations had been benchmarked, as well as IRENA’s staff rulesand policy manuals. She added that in regards to delegation of authority, she felt that authority shouldbe delegated to the Deputy Directors-General with some flexibility.Denmarkremarked that staff regulations are an issue that should be discussed with all staff, not onlytop management, and urged the Secretariat to have formal and substantive discussions with the staffregarding these regulations. Denmark continued that this does not mean that the general staff shouldmake all decisions, but that the staff’s input should be reflected.Denmark continued that as it is presented now, the Council determines the bonus for the Director-18
Second Session of the CouncilMinutesGeneral and the Director-General determines the bonuses for the deputies. However, Denmark stated,it was Denmark’s understanding that the Council should decide on the bonuses for all top managementbased on a proposed system from the Director-General.Director-General Samansstated that a fuller staff discussion regarding the regulations would be heldand that it was the custom, and perhaps even the rule in the Seoul Headquarters, that the staff sign thatthey have been consulted and have been a part of the discussions as the GGGI transitions from theprevious system to the new system.In terms of the performance evaluation system, the Director-General continued, a method foradministering performance evaluations throughout the organization would need to be devised and theevaluations for the latter half of 2012 were currently underway internally.The Director-General stressed that the Council was now considering a set of overarching regulationsthat apply to the GGGI as an international organization. He continued that he agreed that theresponsibility for primary performance evaluation be cascaded down to direct supervisors, but thatevaluations across an organization need to be calibrated to contend for differences in approach andbehavior among departments. He continued that if evaluations are not calibrated, there will beinequities across the organization. Thus, he argued that the principle is to strike a balance betweencascading responsibility down to direct supervisors while ensuring that the Management Committeelooks at evaluations across the board to ensure they are roughly in line with one another.In regards to the bonus system for top management, the Director-General clarified that the Secretariatshould provide a framework for suggestions as to how bonuses are calculated and agreed that thisshould be a policy that is taken either by the Council or the Facilitative Sub-Committee.Director-General Samans continued that he felt the performance evaluations of the Deputy Directors-General were the responsibility of the Director-General because they are direct reports. However, hecontinued, the bonus evaluation system is a policy and clearly should come from the Council. TheDirector-General explained that he views the Director-General as being responsible for the staff in theorganization, while the Council judges the Director-General’s performance and conducts the Director-General’s evaluation. He concluded that a specific framework regarding this issue should be developedfor the Council’s consideration.Denmarkcommented that its understanding had been slightly different from that of the Director-General’s, because what is important is that the Council looks at the performance of the Director-General and the rest of the top management team. Denmark continued that it should be up to theDirector-General to provide his assessment of the team to the Council, but that the decision itselfshould be taken by the Council.Koreaclarified that its earlier comment regarding which IRENA staff regulations had beenbenchmarked was to point out that one set of regulations were from the early stages of IRENA whileanother set was after IRENA had launched as an international organization. Korea suggested that ifGGGI wanted to benchmark IRENA, it should be benchmarking its regulations as an internationalorganization.Director-General Samansstated that the benchmarking was conducted on IRENA as a functioning19
Second Session of the CouncilMinutesinter-governmental organization after its launch.Australiapointed out that the definition of“staff”in the Staff Regulations was different from thedefinition of“staff”in the Headquarters Agreement and asked for clarification.Chair Rasmussenasked the Director-General to provide a response to this and comments on thesquare brackets in the text regarding tax reimbursement.Director-General Samansstated that Australia had surprised him with the question and that thisdifference in definitions would need to be looked into, and then a response would be given toAustralia.Australiaagreed with this and elaborated that the Staff Regulations seem to cover all staff, while theHeadquarters Agreement included specific text regarding non-local staff and staff paid an hourly rate.Director-General Samansresponded that the Headquarters Agreement is largely concerned with thestaff located in the Republic of Korea, whereas the Staff Regulations are organization-wide and sotherefore, there are some areas in which the scope of the Staff Regulations is broader than that of theHeadquarters Agreement.The Director-General continued that there had been discussion in the Transitional Sub-Committeeregarding tax reimbursement and that it had been decided not to address that issue in today’s meetingand to instead address it at the upcoming Transitional Sub-Committee meeting. So, this was an itemthat was not proposed to be finalized at the moment, he said.Chair Rasmussenstated that it was clear that a final approval of the Human Resources StaffRegulations would not be possible, considering the unresolved bracketed text. Thus, he said, thequestion is whether the Council can adopt these Staff Regulations in general.Director-General Samanscommented that he is comfortable with the suggestion that he develop theratings for the deputies but that he consult with the Facilitative Sub-Committee, which is responsiblefor human resources issues, before finalization. He added that he felt he should shape and justify hisrecommendations and ratings for top management.Denmarkresponded that the proposal was satisfactory. Denmark reiterated that it should be possibleto take active, positive steps towards establishing gender equality and to involve the staff in theprocess.Australiasupported Denmark’s suggestion to amend section 5.3 to include concrete languageconcerning the desire to achieve gender balance.Kim Sang-hyupcommented that to his knowledge, female staff far outnumbered the number of malestaff at the working-level, and so the gender balance issue may need to be addressed in the oppositedirection.Chair Rasmussenstated that gender balance presents a complicated challenge and balance should bestruck not by looking at the entire staff but at the different levels of the organization.20
Second Session of the CouncilMinutesKim Sang-hyupclarified that he was trying to say that in five or ten years, the issue of gender balancewill work itself out as female staff are promoted. He stated that he agreed that gender balance shouldbe sought but that in reality, as a member of the Selection Committee for the current search for topmanagement, it had been difficult to identify female candidates for the positions.Chair Rasmussenstated that the issue of gender balance did not need to be finalized today but that itis a challenge that should be dealt with. The Chair continued that the question about where approvalauthority lies in the bonus system raises a more general issue as to the principle behind the delegationof human resources. He stated that this discussion should be continued in the Facilitative Sub-Committee and that he personally felt that two levels of management should be involved in all majorHuman Resources decisions. He continued that he agreed that it is the responsibility of the Director-General to assess and develop the bonus system and that this policy should be approved by theFacilitative Sub-Committee. He added that it should be a general principle that the“nextlevel” isinvolved in all major decisions regarding Human Resources.The Chair recommended that the Council approve the Human Resources Staff Regulations for finalapproval by the Transitional Sub-Committee at its next meeting. He continued that the TransitionalSub-Committee should take a decision that is in line with the discussion held today and should narrowthe questions regarding the remaining bracketed text, gender balance and engaging two levels ofmanagement in all major Human Resources decisions.Director-General Samansemphasized that the Council was currently considering general regulationsand that a set of rules for the more detailed aspects of Human Resources will be developed. Hecontinued that in the rules is where the evaluation process could be considered and that this could bediscussed in the Transitional Sub-Committee. He added that it is difficult, in a regulation document, todelve into the nature of how such a two-level process would be implemented.Chair Rasmussenstated that his proposal was to include a general principle that the Secretariat wouldneed to take into account when implementing the Staff Regulations. He continued that the proposal forthe decision would be to endorse the Staff Regulations and to authorize the Transitional Sub-Committee to make the final approval. The Chair concluded that rather than take the time to draft arevised decision now, he would move on to the next item on the agenda and return to the final decisionafterwards.Australiaasked whether additional information would be required for the Transitional Sub-Committeeto make an informed decision regarding the resolution of tax reimbursements and mechanisms.Chair Rasmussenassured the Council that this was not an issue.Norwaycommented that as the discussion had covered several issues and that not all of them would bereflected in the decision at the moment, it is important that the Council be made aware of, in writing,what is decided by the Transitional Sub-Committee.Chair Rasmussenagreed with Norway’s comment and confirmed that the Transitional Sub-Committee would be reporting back to the Council. He continued that many of the policies beingdiscussed were first-generation and so moving forward, these issues should be discussed again on aregular basis, whether that discussion is through Council meetings or another venue. He added that the21
Second Session of the CouncilMinutesCouncil should seek to create a situation where it can discuss green growth politics and leave many ofthe decisions it was currently engaged in to the Sub-Committees. And, he continued, these Sub-Committees should continuously report to the Council on their activities to ensure transparency andaccountability.The Chair asked the staff to prepare a proposed decision reflecting the discussion. He then moved tothe discussion on the Procurement Rules.The Chair informed the Council that the proposed procurement policy had been developed in the pastfew weeks following a meeting of the Transitional Sub-Committee, and as such he expected that theCouncil would have questions and comments. He gave the floor to the CFO to speak.CFO Joyathanked the Chair and explained that the content of his procurement rules presentation wasdesigned to reflect the Council’s discussion on the subject during its first session. He then proceeded toprovide an overview of the proposed Procurement Rules, C/2/8.CFO Joya explained that the Procurement Rules are designed to be high level rules outlining thegeneral framework or guidelines from which more detailed policies and procedures regardingprocurement would be drawn up. The Director-General is the final approver of all procurementactivities, but would also delegate some of his authorities to lower level management staff according tothe rules on the Delegation of Authority, which was also being prepared.The CFO explained that the Procurement Rules cover various kinds of goods and services, includingreal property, and would apply to all GGGI activities in Headquarters, regional Offices, in-countrywork, etc. Certain aspects, however, are not covered, including, for example, staff contracts andMemorandums of Understanding, unless financial liability is involved. If procurement requirementswere to arise under co-finance projects, the partner’s procurement rules can be utilized provided theyare consistent with the GGGI’s own rules, he continued. Otherwise, GGGI rules apply.CFO Joya outlined seven principles guiding GGGI’s Procurement Rules: (1) ethics; (2) accountability;(3) competitiveness; (4) fairness; (5) transparency; (6) efficiency/effectiveness; and (7) value formoney. The Director-General, as final approver, is supported by three committees: (1) ContractReview Committee; (2) Technical Evaluation Committee; and (3) Financial Evaluation Committee.He explained that the Contract Review Committee exercises oversight of the procurement process andprovides recommendations to the Director-General. It would be chaired by the CFO who is joined bytwo other permanent members appointed by the Director-General. CFO Joya stated that the TechnicalEvaluation Committee’s role is to assess technical value. The key players are the end users, namely theincoming Deputy Directors-General and the Assistant Director-General, he said. The FinancialEvaluation Committee would assess the financial, i.e. cost, aspects of procurement activities. It wouldbe chaired by a soon-to-be-hired Procurement Officer who is joined by other independent members.He continued that the Procurement Officer’s responsibilities would include selecting the procurementmethodology, preparing tender documents and reporting to the Contract Review Committee.CFO Joya further explained several elements that should govern procurement activity, including: (1)segregation of duties between the three Committees; (2) preventing any conflicts of interest fromarising; (3) selection of procurement methodology; (4) preventing manipulation of the rules to22
Second Session of the CouncilMinutescircumvent thresholds; and (5) minimizing bureaucracy by exercising flexibility.He then gave an explanation of the different procurement methodologies, including which would applyaccording to three“categories.”He explained that there are three main categories. The first is highvalue–greater than 150 thousand dollars in the case of goods and greater than 75 thousand dollars inthe case of services. An open, competitive process would need to take place when there are numerouspotential suppliers, whereas if there are a limited number of suppliers, a limited competitive biddingprocess can be utilized. CFO continued that the second category is lower value–up to 150 thousanddollars in the case of goods and up to 75 thousand dollars in the case of services. A request forquotations can be the appropriate methodology here. He added that for lowest value–up to 5 thousanddollars–the appropriate methodology to use would be minor purchases.CFO Joya stated that the most important distinction between the newly proposed Procurement Rulesand the existing rules is that whereas the latter allows for direct contracting for goods and servicesunder a certain threshold value, under the new rules, all procurement activities would go through aprocurement process regardless of value. However, he said, direct contracting would exist as a thirdcategory under the new rules, the distinction being that there are no applicable thresholds. Hecontinued that direct contracting would only be possible in exceptional circumstances as definedseparately in the proposed rules and conditioned by three requirements: first, sufficiently detailedjustifications exist; second, the Contract Review Committee recommends the use of direct contracting;and third, the Director-General approves.CFO Joya concluded that the newly proposed Procurement Rules were much stricter than the GGGI’sexisting rules, as well as those rules that exist in other organizations.Chair Rasmussenthanked CFO Joya for his presentation and turned to the Council for questions.Norwaythanked the CFO for his presentation and underlined the importance of sound ProcurementRules. While expressing satisfaction with the CFO’s presentation, given the importance of these rulesand given the fact that Norway had not had the opportunity to comprehensively review the rules,Norway proposed that the Council adopt the Procurement Rules on an interim basis, which would thenbe reconsidered by the Council in its third session in June for final approval.Chair Rasmussenrecognized the improvements made in the proposed new Procurement Rules butalso recognized the need to give the Council more time to decide on an issue of such importance,referencing the Korean BAI audit on GGGI in which the existing Procurement Rules were a point ofcriticism. He stated that he would be comfortable adopting the proposed rules on an interim basis,which would then be revisited in June.Australiaoffered compliments to the Secretariat for preparing a well-structured set of ProcurementRules. Australia continued by stating that while it agreed with the Rules in general, for Australia, valuefor money would stand as the overriding principle guiding the Procurement Rules. Furthermore,Australia commented that RFQs cannot be designed with the objective of ensuring economic benefitsto the host country, but rather they should aim for value for money. Australia further stated theirdisagreement with Item G, under which direct contracting might be appropriate. Australia continuedthat it would be difficult to imagine a scenario in which the Council would be comfortable with apartner government or organization specifying a supplier for direct contract.23
Second Session of the CouncilMinutesDenmarkechoed Norway’s statements about the importance of procurement rules and emphasizedthat the Council will need to make sure that it has done everything possible to ensure that the proposednew Procurement Rules meet a higher standard.Denmark further provided its endorsement of the Chair’s proposal for interim approval and proposedthat the GGGI could ask UNAPS, which, in a letter to Director-General Samans, offered its assistancewith regards to procurement rules, to conduct a benchmark study on the rules.Indonesiaseconded Australia’s statement on value for money and stated that while integrity isidentified as a principle in the detailed explanation, it is not mentioned as one of the seven principlesoutlined in CFO Joya’s presentation. Indonesia stated that the lack of consistency should be addressed.Indonesia further commented that while focusing on value for money and accountability, flexibility isimportant, whereby the GGGI could utilize a partner country’s procurement rules withoutcompromising its own principles.Koreastated its support for the Chair’s proposal on taking a step-by-step approach to finalizing theProcurement Rules and further stated that better regulations on procurement were required, stating that“morethan 50% of the GGGI’s budget is [spent] on outsourcing.”Korea asked the CFO for clarification on the discrepancy between the proposed composition of theContract Review Committee during his presentation at the Informal Gathering of the Council in Doha,Qatar, in December 2012 and during his presentation at this meeting. Korea also identified the need forchecks and balances and questioned whether this principle is respected under the proposed Rules,wherein the Director-General has authority for final approval on all procurement activities.Korea continued by asking the Secretariat for an explanation on the threshold of 150 thousand dollarsfor goods and 75 thousand dollars for services, inquiring as to why the Secretariat had not chosen toreduce these thresholds, which it had committed to doing during the Informal Gathering.Norwaycommented that Denmark’s proposition to benchmark procurement rules would be beneficial.Norway continued by saying that as“thebiggest donor,” it wants to see transparency in the GGGI’sexecution of taxpayer funds.While the current rules might be good enough, Norway stressed that it is important that the GGGI bemeasured by the highest standards of transparency and fairness possible and that it would be importantfor Norwegian audit authorities to see that money allocated to GGGI is spent well.UAEcommended the Secretariat for its hard work and stated that the proposed Procurement Rulesprovided a good basis upon which further improvements can be made. In specific, UAE commentedthat if single-source procurement is undertaken, the Secretariat should provide a clearer picture of thecriteria for such action.Chair Rasmussenasked the Secretariat to provide an answer to the questions and comments raised,and asked the Secretariat to verify if indeed UNAPS had offered to do a benchmark study.
24
Second Session of the CouncilMinutesDirector-General Samansstated that UNAPS had offered to become GGGI’s contractor to handleprocurement and asked if this was what Denmark was referring to. He further stated that while UNAPSwas an expert in the area, the UN system of procurement was not necessarily the most desirable onefor the GGGI. He concurred that benchmarking would be useful, but asked for more time to evaluatewhich organization would do the benchmarking.Denmarkclarified that it was in possession of a letter addressed to Director-General Samans from theExecutive Director of UNAPS in which the latter was offering the GGGI assistance in a number ofareas, including capacity development. Denmark stressed that it would be important to conduct abenchmark and that it be done by an independent agency, while also underlining the belief that theUN’s standards were of sufficiently high level.UAEcommented that drawing from its own experiences, it does not see UNAPS as the right entity toconduct procurement for the GGGI. UAE further stated a RFP should be issued to identify the bestcandidate to conduct the benchmark.Chair Rasmussenclarified that the issue at hand was not about selecting an external entity to conductprocurement for the GGGI, but rather identifying the right entity that would conduct the benchmarkstudy for the GGGI. The Chair proposed that the Council adopt the proposed Procurement Rules on aninterim basis for immediate effect, following which the final approval would be taken in June. Keepingthis in mind, the Transitional Sub-Committee, during its meeting on 1 February, would take up theissue of identifying the right candidate for a benchmark study.Chair Rasmussen stated his agreement with the Australian comment that value for money be listed asthe first principle guiding the GGGI’s procurement rules. He asked the Council for any furthercomments before moving on.Koreastated its wish to hear an answer from the Secretariat on its two questions.CFO Joyathanked the members for their comments and added that in drawing up the newProcurement Rules, UNAPS and other UN organizations such as IFAD had been benchmarked. Hefurther added that while UNAPS’s procurement heavily focused on goods, GGGI’s would tilt moretowards services due to the nature of its work. He assured the members that value for money, inaddition to the other identified principles, would not be compromised under the proposed rules.Moving to specific questions, CFO Joya stated that because the incoming Deputy Directors-Generalwill likely be most active in procuring goods and services, the decision was made to not have them aspart of the Contract Review Committee due to possible conflict of interest. Based on this decision, itwas further decided that the incoming Deputy Director-General would sit on the Technical EvaluationCommittee instead.He continues that while the Contract Review Committee would be chaired by the CFO, the Director-General could appoint at least two other permanent members, which could include staff from the Legalteam. He added that the Internal Auditor was also removed from serving in any committees becausedoing so would likely prevent him/her from assessing or evaluating the GGGI’s activities from aneutral perspective.25
Second Session of the CouncilMinutesWith regards to thresholds, CFO explained that there exist different thresholds for differentprocurement methodologies, and in reality, all procurement activities, regardless of value, would needto go through the procurement process. CFO Joya highlighted this as the key difference between thenew and existing rules and also underlined the fact that different thresholds exist for different levels ofprocurement so that these rules do not hamper day-to-day business.While recognizing the possibility of using a partner’s national procurement system, as Indonesiasuggested, the primary objective would be to create value for money, not to benefit any country. CFOJoya concluded by stating that the Procurement Rules would be continually evolving and thanked themembers for their support towards adopting these rules on an interim basis.Chair Rasmussenthanked CFO Joya for his clarifications and asked the Secretariat to prepare anamended decision document. He clarified that the Council would be postponing the final decision onthe Procurement Rules until June, and bearing in mind the time, the Chair proposed that the Councilmove forward to the next agenda item at hand, Delegation of Authority.With no members of the Council asking for a presentation from the Secretariat on Delegation ofAuthority, the Council decided to approve the Decision on Delegation of Authority, C/2/DC/6, byconsensus. The Chair moved on to the Disclosure Policy, C/2/9.Denmarkstated that no presentation on Disclosure Policy would be needed but commented that (1)the decision not to disclose should be undertaken by the top management instead of the Secretariat; and(2) 45 days for a preliminary response to a request was too long.Chair Rasmussen,hearing no objections to changing“Secretariat”to“topmanagement,” proposedthis change and asked the Council what an appropriate time for response would be.Denmarkcommented that while in Denmark 10 calendar days is the norm for a preliminary response,15 calendar days in the case of GGGI could be an appropriate number.Chair Rasmussenacknowledged Denmark’s comment and inquired the Director-General’s opinion asto whether this would be executable.Director-General Samansstated that the Secretariat would accommodate the proposal of 15 daysprovided that the Council could revisit this number should it become necessary to do so.Chair Rasmussenreconfirmed the Council’s proposal on the wording of the Disclosure Policy with“Secretariat”changed to“topmanagement” and“45days” to“15days.” With these changes, theCouncil approved the Decision on the Disclosure Policy, C/2/DC/7, by consensus.The Chair proposed that the Council skip to the agenda item on the Sub-Committees of the Council todiscuss the terms of reference, scope and proposed candidates before moving to a break, followingwhich a final decision would be made.
26
Second Session of the CouncilMinutesVIII. SUB-COMMITTEES OF THE COUNCIL2Chair Rasmussenstated his belief that the three proposed Sub-Committees of the Council werenecessary and that they were already discussed during the Council’s earlier deliberations on the budget.He stated that in terms of the composition of the Sub-Committees, a balance should be struck betweencontributing and participating members of the Council in each Sub-Committee. In line with this, heproposed that a contributing member chair the Audit and Finance Sub-Committee and that aparticipating member chair the Program Sub-Committee.Chair Rasmussen further added that having consulted with members, he proposed that Costa Rica chairthe Program Sub-Committee and that Denmark chair the Audit and Finance Sub-Committee. Heexplained that while the latter decision on Denmark was not his original intention due in part to the factthat the Chair himself is a Dane, there was a lack of willing candidates.With regards to the Facilitative Sub-Committee, the Chair proposed that the current Transitional Sub-Committee members take on this responsibility for the next year. He explained that the GGGI was stillin a transitional phase and the most efficient way to take the Institute forward would be for theTransitional Sub-Committee to take the reins of the Facilitative Sub-Committee. He also revealedAustralia’s wish to step down from the Transitional Sub-Committee. Therefore, the Facilitative Sub-Committee would exclude Australia, for a total six members (Chair Rasmussen, Denmark, Indonesia,Korea, Kim Sang-hyup and Director-General Samans), which is more in line with the original proposalfrom the Secretariat of five as the maximum number of members for each Sub-Committee.Chair Rasmussen also proposed that he would serve as the Chair of the Facilitative Sub-Committeeand that Kim Sang-hyup would continue to serve as a member. He also identified Lord Stern as anexcellent candidate for the Program Sub-Committee. He asked the rest of the members for theircomments on the above proposals.Norwayunderlined its strong support of the Chair’s proposals. Norway further added that while theywere honored to have been approached by the Chair to serve as the chair of the Audit and Finance Sub-Committee, unfortunately they did not have the capacity to perform such a task.Norway also stated its strong support for the proposal that Costa Rica chair the Program Sub-Committee. Norway outlined its interest in serving on the Program Sub-Committee as member.Denmarkthanked Norway for its comments.Costa Ricastated that it would be honored to serve as the chair of the Program Sub-Committee.Koreaoutlined its expectation that the three Sub-Committees would actively participate in dealingwith the direction and activities of the GGGI as well as serve as a standing or regular consultationmechanism between the Secretariat and the Council.Australiaexplained that while Ambassador Howard Bamsey had asked to step down from theFacilitative Sub-Committee, he was very enthusiastic about serving on the Program Sub-Committee2
The discussion did not follow the sequencing of items on the Agenda, C/2/AG/1.
27
Second Session of the CouncilMinuteswith Norway and under the chairmanship of Costa Rica.Qatar,having taken the floor for the first time, offered its greetings to the rest of the Councilmembers. Qatar continued by outlining its keen interest to serve on the Program Sub-Committee andsupported Costa Rica’s chairmanship of the said Sub-Committee.Indonesiaoffered its support to Chair Rasmussen’s proposals and underlined the need for balancebetween participating and contributing members. Indonesia stated their intention to serve on theProgram Sub-Committee.UAEstated its intention to serve on the Audit and Finance Sub-Committee.Denmarkstated that while there was no original intention on its part to chair the Audit and FinanceSub-Committee, it was ready to do so, given the Council’s wish.Koreareminded the Council that it too wanted to serve on the Audit and Finance Sub-Committee asthe biggest donor and host country.Chair Rasmussenthanked the members for their comments and called for a short, ten minute breakbefore continuing the discussions.[Break]
Chair Rasmussenreconvened the Council and thanked the members for their patience andcooperation. Before continuing the discussion on the Sub-Committees, the Chair proposed that theCouncil approve the revised decision documents on Human Resources, Procurement Rules and theDisclosure Policy.Director-General Samansstated that he fully endorsed the current framework, under which theSecretariat would be allowed to move forward on these issues on an interim basis pending a finaldecision in the near future, particularly as the GGGI is currently in an important transition phase,including in regards to Human Resources.Chair Rasmussenthanked Director-General Samans for the clarification and proposed that theCouncil move on to the Procurement Rules. The Chair proposed that the Council adopt the reviseddecision document, reading“toapprove the Rules to enter into effect on January 18 and until the nextCouncil session, at which time the Secretariat shall provide final Procurement Rules that are revised toincorporate recommendations from the Council and reflect benchmarking of relevant best practices;and to authorize the Secretariat to develop guidelines or a handbook for the Rules consistent with therevised Procurement Rules, as described above.”Denmarkstated it was happy with the revision but proposed an amendment as follows:“andreflectindependent benchmarking.” The Procurement Rules document was amended as such and the Counciladopted, by consensus, the Decision on the Procurement Rules, C/2/DC/5.Chair Rasmussenreturned to the discussion on Sub-Committees and proposed that, at least in regardsto the Program and Facilitative Sub-Committees, the limit on members should be increased from five28
Second Session of the CouncilMinutesto six.He continued by clarifying the difference in scope and role between the Program and Facilitative Sub-Committees. A distinction between results, monitoring and evaluation and strategy would be made,and it would be the responsibility of the Program Sub-Committee to advise the Council on decisionspertaining to the results, monitoring and evaluation framework as presented under Article 8, section 5(b) of the Establishment Agreement as well as decisions pertaining to Article 8, section 5 (c) and (f) ofthe Establishment Agreement. On the other hand, the Facilitative Sub-Committee would advise theCouncil on decisions relating to strategy, also presented under the Article 8, section 5 (b), heexplained.The Chair asked if there were any further comments or proposals on the Terms of Reference of theSub-Committees.Hearing none, the Council moved on to the composition of the Sub-Committees. Chair Rasmussenproposed that the Audit and Finance Sub-Committee be chaired by Denmark, with Kiribati–subject toKiribati’s acceptance–Korea, Mexico and UAE joining as members for a total of five members. TheProgram Sub-Committee would be chaired by Costa Rica with Australia, Indonesia, Norway, Qatarand Lord Stern–subject to his acceptance–as members, for a total of up to six members. TheFacilitative Sub-Committee would be chaired by Chair Rasmussen himself, with Denmark, Indonesia,Korea, Kim Sang-hyup and Director-General Samans joining as members, for a total of six members.Norwaythanked the Chair and offered its support for the proposal.Indonesia,having realized that the Chair’s proposal contains its name on both the Facilitative andProgram Sub-Committees, stated its preference to be a member of only the Program Sub-Committee, ifpossible.Qatar,recalling Chair Rasmussen’s proposal that the Transitional Sub-Committee would take over theFacilitative Sub-Committee’s role for only one year, inquired as to whether the Terms of Referencereflected this.Chair Rasmussenacknowledged Qatar’s statement and requested that the language in the Terms ofReference for the Facilitative Sub-Committee be changed to reflect a term of one year instead of two.The other Sub-Committees’ terms would remain as two years.Denmarkoffered its support to the Chair’s proposal but reminded the Council that there were somemembers of the Council, including Denmark, which have only a one-year term on the Council, but arebeing asked to serve on Sub-Committees for a two-year term.Chair Rasmussenstated that the easiest way to solve the issue raised by Denmark was to amend eachTerms of Reference for the three Sub-Committees so that each consists of a term of one year. Thiswould not preclude the possibility of members serving on Sub-Committees for more than one year, butit would allow the Council to come back to composition of the Sub-Committees each year fordiscussion.Chair Rasmussen continued by stating that he was pleased to see numerous members wishing to be29
Second Session of the CouncilMinutespart of the Program Sub-Committee, as it reminds the Council that the core business of the GGGI isGreen Growth Planning and Implementation. He further stated that it would be beneficial for theCouncil as a whole, not just in the Program Sub-Committee, to discuss the program aspects of theGGGI as was done during the Informal Gathering in Doha.Kim Sang-hyupthanked the Chair for his proposal and stated that more communication andinteraction were necessary between the Council and the Secretariat, and in his capacity as a member ofthe Facilitative Sub-Committee, he would do his best to play such a bridging role.Chair Rasmussenthanked Kim Sang-hyup for his comments.Director-General Samanscommented that the creation of the three Sub-Committees was a major stepforward in terms of governance. The Secretariat, including the Director-General himself, was eager toengage in work with the three Sub-Committees, which they had attempted to create for some time.He continued by stating that a certain mode of operation and engagement would need to be developedin each case, because while the Sub-Committees are asked to look into deeper issues and details onbehalf of the Council, it is also true that the individual members that compose the Sub-Committeescannot engage in their respective Sub-Committee duties on a full-time basis. Thus, an orderly way oforganizing the work would be necessary so that the Council can look to the Sub-Committees,particularly the Chairs, to provide the sort of due diligence that the Council needs, as well as rely uponthe advice of the Sub-Committees to conduct its business in a more informed and efficient manner.Director-General Samans concluded his remarks by applauding Chair Rasmussen for his leadership incomposing the three Sub-Committees. However, he also stated his slight concern that if Indonesiaexcused itself from the Facilitative Sub-Committee, there would be no participating member on thisSub-Committee.Chair Rasmussenthanked Director-General Samans for his comments and stated that he was inagreement on the need for a participating member to be on the Facilitative Sub-Committee and askedIndonesia to reconsider their position on the issue. Before concluding, he remarked that there wasconsensus to change the term of all Sub-Committee members to one year.Indonesiastated that for the sake of the GGGI, it would agree to stay on as a member of theFacilitative Sub-Committee as well.Chair Rasmussenthanked Indonesia and turned to Australia.Australiaasked the Chair if it would be possible to see the Terms of References on the screen againwith the changes incorporated. With the screen back on, Australia continued by clarifying its positionthat it would be happy to agree with the change of moving the strategy component from the ProgramSub-Committee as a responsibility of the Facilitative Sub-Committee.Chair Rasmussenclarified that this change was made after informal discussions among some of theCouncil members in the lead up to the Council meeting. He continued that the argument was that as theFacilitative Sub-Committee would likely meet on a more regular basis compared to the other Sub-Committees, it would make more sense to have it responsible for advice on strategy. The Chair further30
Second Session of the CouncilMinutesclarified that this, however, does not change the fact that the responsibility for advising the Councilabout the Green Growth Planning and Implementation aspects of the GGGI’s strategy still lay with theProgram Sub-Committee.Hearing no further comments, the Council approved the Decision on the Sub-Committees of theCouncil, C/2/DC/9, with the revised Terms of References, by consensus.
IX. ADVISORY COMMITTEEChair Rasmussenstated that the Council members had been asked to propose candidates to theAdvisory Committee at the last meeting. He added that thus far, two proposals had been received. Hecontinued that the current proposal is to appoint two chairs, approve the criteria for membership and torequest the Secretariat to provide a draft Rules of Procedure.UAEcommented that while it was fully aware of the importance of the Advisory Committee’s role, itwas not sure if this Council meeting was the appropriate time to discuss this issue, especially as theCouncil had just spent time finalizing the Sub-Committees of the Council.Australiaoffered its strong support to the two proposed candidates–Professor Thomas Heller and Dr.Young Soogil–but also stated that the role of the Advisory Committee is not sufficiently clearlydefined, which has made it difficult to propose candidates to the Secretariat. Australia added that morework was necessary to make clear how the Advisory Committee would work and how it would interactwith the different Sub-Committees and the Secretariat. Australia further explained that it would beimportant that the Advisory Committee has a strong representation of candidates with strongdevelopment backgrounds.Kim Sang-hyupstated his understanding that one of the unique points of the GGGI is its focus onpublic-private partnerships. Given also his understanding that a“corporatecommittee” would beestablished soon to induce private partnership, he inquired as to how this committee would differ fromthe Advisory Committee.Chair Rasmussenstated that he was not aware of plans for a“corporatecommittee.”Director-General Samansclarified that in strategy discussions going back some time, such an ideahad been raised. He stated that while the nomenclature of“committee”had not been decided, thedifference between such a group of private sector actors and the Advisory Committee is that the latteradvises the GGGI as a whole and is composed of academics, civil society, public and private sectors.He added that the Advisory Committee is a broader and multi-stakeholder conception.The“corporatecommittee,” he clarified, would be a much smaller, specialized group of private sectorleaders that advises on private sector-related public-private cooperation activities and public-privaterelated aspects of GGGI’s research work. The benefit of having this group is that by giving the privatesector a stake in the organization, better feedback or results can follow from them, he said.Director-General Samans concluded by commenting that it would be conceivable to have one or twomembers of the potential corporate group engaged as private sector actors on the Advisory Committee31
Second Session of the CouncilMinutesas well.Denmarkstated their alignment with the position of the UAE and Australia, in that perhaps theCouncil needs a little more time to think about what the exact role and composition of the AdvisoryCommittee would be. Denmark added that this could be an issue to be looked at more closely by theFacilitative Sub-Committee before appointing any members to the Advisory Committee.Norwaycommented that the Advisory Committee is a very positive initiative that sets the GGGI apartfrom other international organizations, especially the consideration of public-private partnershipopportunities and having academicians as potential members.Norway concurred with the statements made by the UAE, Australia and Denmark by stating that it waspremature to talk about approving the membership of the two aforementioned candidates not becausethey were not sufficiently qualified, but because the Council would need to deliberate on how thecomposition of the Advisory Committee would be made in the first place. Norway continued by statingthat one idea could be to have the Secretariat and the Director-General, in consultations with ChairRasmussen, provide suggestions for candidates, keeping in mind the balance of public versus privateactors and geographical representation.Chair Rasmussenthanked the members for their comments and suggested that the Council deliberateon the exact decision that the Council would like to take relating to the Advisory Committee, ratherthan simply postponing a decision. The Chair identified that it would be helpful to have the Secretariatprovide to the Council the draft Rules of Procedure of the Advisory Committee before it makes a finaldecision.Chair Rasmussen also stated that the idea behind appointing Professor Heller and Dr. Young as co-Chairs was to allow them to provide input towards identifying the right candidates.Koreastated that a two-track approach, in which the Secretariat proposes to the Council a list ofcandidates and the Council members also propose their own candidates, was appropriate.Australiaasked the Council whether the rest of the members were in agreement with Australia’s viewthat the role of the Advisory Committee was insufficiently defined. If this was indeed the case,Australia proposed that the Secretariat or the Facilitative Sub-Committee take this matter up quicklyand discuss specific issues such as remuneration, which was mentioned earlier.Additionally, while considering Dr. Young’s candidacy with the greatest respect, Australia added thatProfessor Heller had been involved for a long time and that it was important that the Council conveyits strong desire that Professor Heller remain involved. Meanwhile, as the Council deliberates on theexact decision to be taken, Australia argued that it was important for the Council to give bothcandidates assurances about its confidence in their potential candidacy as members of the AdvisoryCommittee.Chair Rasmussenreiterated his belief that a simple postponement of the issue of the AdvisoryCommittee without taking any decision would not be ideal operationally. He added his agreement thatthe GGGI has enjoyed strong cooperation with both proposed candidates and that no mistrust, on theCouncil’s part, of the two candidates existed.32
Second Session of the CouncilMinutes
The Chair proposed that the Council take the Decision on the Advisory Committee forward by askingthe Secretariat to: (1) propose, in cooperation with the Facilitative Sub-Committee, a terms ofreference for the Advisory Committee that will include a proposal about how to compose theCommittee; (2) provide a draft Rules of Procedure of the Advisory Committee in accordance with theterms of reference to the Council for adoption at its next meeting; and (3) develop an initial list ofcandidates for consideration by the Council at its next meeting.Denmarkstated its agreement with the Chair’s proposal but proposed adding a paragraph that wouldstipulate that Advisory Committee members are not remunerated for their work but will only havetravel and hotel accommodation costs covered.Chair Rasmussenstated that Denmark’s statement seems in line with the general opinion of theCouncil and that this should be taken into account when the Council asks the Secretariat to develop thenecessary regulations or framework for travel reimbursements for members of the AdvisoryCommittee. The Chair asked Denmark to repeat its proposal.Denmarkproposed that the Secretariat would provide a draft Rules of Procedure of the AdvisoryCommittee to the Council for its review, including a framework for travel and hotel accommodationreimbursement, but no other remuneration. The point was that membership for the AdvisoryCommittee would be awarded on the basis of the individual candidate’s desire to engage in greengrowth work, not for other reasons, Denmark added.Chair Rasmussenstated that this was clear enough. In responding to Kim Sang-hyup’s inquiry as tohow many members the Advisory Committee could accommodate, the Chair clarified that answeringthis would be part of the exercise of the Secretariat’s drafting a terms of reference and the Rules ofProcedure.Australiastated its support for the Chair’s proposal but clarified that the Council may need toconsider, if it has not already, the idea that the Advisory Committee elects its own chair, as stipulatedin Article 9.4 of the Establishment Agreement.Chair Rasmussenstated that as the issue on Advisory Committee is taken forward, Australia’s pointwill be taken into account.Hearing no more comments on the issue, the Council approved the Decision on the AdvisoryCommittee, C/2/DC/8, by consensus.
X. SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE SESSIONS OF THE COUNCIL IN 2013Chair Rasmussenstated that this year’s Global Green Growth Summit (GGGS) will be hosted in Junein Seoul, and so the proposal was to have the third session of the Council back-to-back with theGGGS. The exact dates had not been decided yet, but the Chair proposed that the second weekend ofJune could be an idea. However, he added, the decision on the date of the Council session would needto take into consideration when the GGGS should be held.33
Second Session of the CouncilMinutesKim Sang-hyupstated that in scheduling the GGGS, the importance of publicity would need to bestrongly considered. In that regard, it would be best to have the GGGS on a Monday and/or Tuesday.He added that the fourth board meeting of the Green Climate Fund will be taking place in Korea andthis could provide an opportunity for the GGGI to explore strategic collaboration with the GCF. Headded that it might also be worth inviting GCF board members to the GGGS.Chair Rasmussenacknowledged Kim Sang-hyup’s remarks but stated that the decision today shouldbe for the date of the third session of the Council and proposed the 8thand 9thof June.Denmarkstated its agreement with the Chair’s proposal and added that because of the high financialand logistical costs of hosting Council meetings outside of the Headquarters, as a general rule, theyshould be held in Seoul while leaving open the possibility of the occasional session held elsewhere.Denmark also proposed that the last session of the Council, during which the budget will be discussed,be held in Seoul in the first week of December.Chair Rasmussenthanked Denmark for its comments and agreed that such a discussion wasnecessary, but invited comments specifically on the scheduling of the third session of the Council firstbefore moving on. Chair Rasmussen stated that it would be useful to spend two days for the thirdCouncil session because a lot of material will be discussed, which by nature are time-consuming. Thus,he proposed that the Council reserve two dates in June for the third session but then come back at alater point to decide definitively whether both days are required.Kim Sang-hyupreiterated that for the sake of increasing publicity for the GGGS, it would bebeneficial to hold it on Monday with the third session of the Council held before the GGGS.Chair Rasmussenacknowledged Kim Sang-hyup’s remarks and repeated that the Council will make a“reservation”of two days in June for the third session of the Council and then return to the details at alater point. These details will need to be made clear as soon as possible after the Secretariat, incooperation with the Chair and the Korean government, decide on the date for the GGGS, he added.Chair Rasmussen returned to the point raised by Denmark earlier and stated his agreement that the lastsession of the Council, in which the budget is discussed, should be held in Seoul. The Chair added thatwhile the COP has been used in previous years as a coinciding event during which the Council has alsomet at the end of the year, the fact that this year’s COP is held earlier in November puts the Council ina difficult position to adopt the budget at that time. He continued that this is because the Secretariatwill likely need more time than would be allowed by a November Council session to prepare therelevant documents on the budget.Denmarkproposed that the last session of the Council this year not be held on a weekend, and couldbe held on Thursday the 5thof December or Friday the 6th. This would give the Secretariat sufficienttime for preparations. Denmark inquired the opinion of Director-General Samans.Norwaysupported Denmark’s proposition for the dates of the third session of the Council. Norwaywas supportive of Denmark’s proposal that as a general rule, Council sessions be held in Seoul.However, given Norway’s belief that three Council sessions a year is sufficient, particularly from thenext year on with the Sub-Committees fully established and running, it would be beneficial to have oneout of three sessions outside of Korea. The benefits would be that it increases the GGGI’s visibility,34
Second Session of the CouncilMinutesNorway stated. Norway stated that, for example, a Council session could be held in Norway, Denmarkor Europe in general, where awareness of the GGGI is not so widespread.Norway also commented that New York City during the UN’s General Assembly could be a usefuloccasion to host a Council session, as numerous officials and experts relevant to the GGGI gather inNew York during that time. Norway added that an alternative idea would be to have the three Sub-Committees meet in New York instead of the full Council.Denmarkstated that while it had nothing against holding one Council session outside of Seoul, theGGGI would need to be careful in not having too many meetings in general. With regards to the venueof Sub-Committee meetings, Denmark strongly suggested that these are held in Seoul because it allowsthe Sub-Committee members to interact with the relevant Secretariat staff.Chair Rasmussenacknowledged the comments and stated that there was a concrete proposal to makea reservation for the fourth session of the Council on the 5thand 6thof December in Seoul. The Chairasked Director-General Samans whether this would be a suitable date.Director-General Samansagreed that the two dates would suit the Secretariat.Chair Rasmussenproposed to the Council that it reserve the 5thand 6thof December for the fourthsession of the Council in Seoul. He stated his agreement with Norway’s point that with theestablishment of the Sub-Committees, the Council would not need to meet four times a year. However,the Chair proposed that in this year, 2013, the Council convene in early autumn as well, possiblySeptember, because a discussion would be needed in the third quarter–whether it is a formal sessionor an informal gathering–on the future budget. The Chair also agreed with Denmark that inviting theSub-Committees for a meeting in New York would be very costly.Norwaystated that the important decision for them at this point was to decide whether or not theCouncil or the Sub-Committees would convene in early autumn or not. Norway also reiterated theadded value in being present in New York during the General Assembly despite the costs.UAEcommented that while as a Council member it understands the Council’s desire to receive regularupdates from the Secretariat on progress being made, having four Council sessions a year would allowfor only a three-month interval between each subsequent session and thereby put a great deal ofpressure on the Secretariat to organize and prepare for these meetings. The UAE continued that thiswould be detrimental to the Secretariat’s ability to produce the work that the Council wants it toproduce. Thus, the UAE suggested that the Council needs to be rational in determining the number ofmeetings to be had until the organization has reached a stage of stability and the Secretariat is capableof delivering what is expected of it.Chair Rasmussenacknowledged the comments and proposed that the Council decide to meet threetimes in 2013, with the subsequent sessions scheduled in June and December. Nevertheless, the Chairadded that it would be important to have a discussion on the procedures and processes regarding thebudget in early autumn by means of written inputs or by a virtual meeting, so that there is a window ofopportunity to present proposals.
35
Second Session of the CouncilMinutesDirector-General Samanscommented that this was a good solution, bearing in mind the very heavyamount of work that is needed to prepare each Council session. He also added that in taking thisoption, it makes the calendar issue much easier and efficient for the Sub-Committees.Director-General Samans further stated that having a virtual meeting in September of each Sub-Committee, at a minimum, could also be useful.Chair Rasmussenreconfirmed that the intention of the Council was to reserve the dates of 8thand 9thJune for its third session and 5thand 6thDecember for its fourth session, for a total of three sessions ofthe Council in 2013. Both the June and December sessions would take place in Seoul. The Councilthen approved the Decision on the schedule for future sessions of the Council in 2013, C/2/DC/10, byconsensus.
XI. PROVISIONAL AGENDA FOR NEXT SESSION OF THE COUNCILChair Rasmussenstated that the discussions during this session had already created a few agendaitems for the next session of the Council and invited comments and proposals.Koreasuggested that capacity-building issues, such as strengthening the Headquarters, strengtheningthe research function, enhancing public-private partnership initiatives including fund raising, which isrelated to the Advisory Committee, should be discussed at the next session and for the time beingcould remain as permanent issues for discussion. Korea added that last year’s budget remains to bediscussed and that a report from the Secretariat was required.Chair Rasmussenagreed that last year’s budget would need to be an item on its own in the agenda ofthe next session. The Chair also agreed with the need for discussions on the different items identifiedby Korea, which would be a part of an integrated discussion regarding the budget.Chair Rasmussen proposed that a discussion about substance or the GGP&I work of the GGGI shouldalso be included in the agenda. He added that such discussion on the actual work of the GGGI,including its research activities, should be discussed at the Council whenever time allows to do so.Taking into consideration the comments made, the Council decided to approve the Decision on theprovisional agenda for next session of the Council, C/2/DC/11, by consensus.
XII. ANY OTHER BUSINESSChair Rasmusseninvited Korea to offer an update on ODA eligibility.Koreastated its understanding that the Secretariat would present on the updates regarding the ODAeligibility application and invited the Secretariat to present first before offering comments.Director-General Samanscommented that no formal presentation was ready but provided an updateon the status. He emphasized that the application for ODA eligibility status to the OECD DAC was astrategically significant step for the GGGI considering, among other factors, that this is an issue of36
Second Session of the CouncilMinutesimportance to a number of donors. He explained that the GGGI had engaged in a couple of rounds ofdiscussion with the DAC Secretariat and that the GGGI Secretariat is expecting preliminary feedbackfrom the DAC Secretariat on the application before filing the final proposal.Director-General Samans further outlined hopes that the Republic of Korea, as well as some othermembers, would be prepared to jointly put forward the application, due by end of February with resultsto be revealed by May or June. He further stated that because the GGGI’s activities areoverwhelmingly focused on developing country economic issues and poverty reduction, he felt GGGIwas a strong candidate. The Director-General underlined again that he feels ODA eligibility is a topstrategic priority and that it will be treated as such.Norwaystated that it was pleased to see the Director-General and the Secretariat moving forward onthis issue and that Norway looked forward to helping in this regard.Koreastated that there is only a very short window of time before the DAC Secretariat returns withtheir preliminary feedback sometime at the end of January and the due date for the final proposal.Korea urged the Secretariat to prepare a detailed work plan, including a timeline for action, to besubmitted to the Transitional Sub-Committee at its meeting on 1 February.At the same time, Korea explained that it is willing to submit the application to the DAC Secretariat onbehalf of the GGGI and called on other GGGI members who are part of the DAC, such as Australia,Denmark, Norway and the United Kingdom, to jointly submit the application. Following this, Koreastated that it would be necessary for the five countries to negotiate with other DAC member countriesin the coming months. Korea concluded by stating its hopes that the Council and the Secretariat payclose attention to the issue of ODA eligibility.Denmarkcommented that they are certainly ready to support the application, which is very important,but outlined hopes that Korea would take the lead to make sure all of the relevant members are fullyinformed of the process and that all the relevant preparations are undertaken.Korearemarked that like last year with the Establishment Agreement, Korea was willing to takeleadership with the support of other countries. Korea added that the preparation of documentationshould be done by the Secretariat and it was willing to cooperate closely for this.Kim Sang-hyupshared the news that Angel Gurria, Secretary General of the OECD, will be in Koreain early February for a meeting with the President and the President-elect. He added that as AngelGurria is a strong supporter of Korea’s green growth initiative, the GGGI could provide him with abrief explanation of the its work and application for ODA eligibility.Chair Rasmussenthanked the members for their comments and stated that ODA eligibility would beadded to the agenda for the Transitional Sub-Committee meeting. He added that it was of greatimportance that the Council and Secretariat work hard towards this goal, as some donor funding isconditioned on the GGGI successfully attaining ODA eligibility status and if the GGGI fails to attaineligibility this time, it would have to wait another 5 years before applying again, which would be a“disaster.”Chair Rasmussen turned to Korea to provide an update on the Seoul Headquarters.37
Second Session of the CouncilMinutesKoreaexplained that the Secretariat’s plan to increase the number of staff in the Headquarters willcreate additional space constraints at the current premises. Thus, Korea, as host country, was willing towork closely with the Council and Secretariat to facilitate a move to a more suitable premise.Korea added that its Foreign Minister had a consultative meeting with Chair Rasmussen and Director-General Samans about Incheon City’s proposal to provide GGGI with a new Headquarters premisecoupled with generous terms. Going forward, Korea is willing to consult bilaterally and with theSecretariat to continue discussions on the issue.Chair Rasmussenthanked Korea and shared with the Council that he had had a bilateral meeting withKorea on the idea of moving the Headquarters to Songdo, Incheon City. He added that it was indeed avery generous offer and stated that the proposal received from Incheon City would be shared with theCouncil. He concluded that at some stage, the Council will have to come back to this issue of whetherthe GGGI accepts Incheon City’s offer. The Chair turned to Costa Rica for their presentation.Costa Ricathanked Chair Rasmussen and the members of the Council and stated that since CostaRica’s joining of the GGGI, it had always strived to be an active and engaged member. Costa Ricarecalled President Lee Myung-bak’s words during the GGGI’s Inaugural Meetings of the Assemblyand the Council about the importance of training people. With that in mind, Costa Rica had puttogether a consortium of five Costa Rican institutions to launch an international graduate program onsustainability and green growth, with the idea of offering an opportunity for global cooperation oncapacity-building and expanding partnerships.Costa Rica added that the overarching mission of this new initiative is to help train a new generation ofleaders to be change agents that will bring the new paradigm of green growth into practice at all levelsin both the public and private sectors. Currently, the five institutions represent over 100 nationalitiesand are supported by 1,000 different partners. The five participating institutions are CATIE, EarthUniversity, the National Institute of Biodiversity, INCAE and United Nations University for Peace,each with its respective specializations but all located in Costa Rica.Costa Rica extended an offer to the Council members to visit the universities involved and helpfacilitate links and partnerships with other universities and institutions involved in green growth withinthose countries represented by the GGGI member-states.Chair Rasmussenthanked Costa Rica for its presentation and turned to the Council for remarks.Kim Sang-hyupwelcomed the Costa Rican proposal and pointed out the importance of educatingpeople, citing the example of Korea’s development experience. He further added that a graduate schoolfor green growth will be launched at KAIST, in addition to a special program for green growth andsustainable development at KDI. He stated that training people should be at the center of GGGI’s tasksand that he would like to see more developments such as these in the future.Chair Rasmussenstated that the Council was eager to learn more about Costa Rica’s initiative andwould return to it later, while adding that he welcomed such inputs to the Council.Chair Rasmussen commented that after a long day, the Council, while only taking interim decisions onsome agenda items, made significant progress. He thanked the members for their participation and38
Second Session of the CouncilMinutescooperation and thanked the Secretariat for their hard work in preparing the meeting. He concluded bystating his wishes for continued cooperation in the future and to meeting again in June in Seoul.Having no further business, the meeting was adjourned.End of meeting
39
