URU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 54: Organisationsstrategi for Danmarks samarbejde med Global Environment Facility (GEF) og Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) 2018-22

Udenrigsudvalget 2018-19 (1. samling)
URU Alm.del Bilag 54
Offentligt

Danish Organisation Strategy

for

Global Environment Facility and Least

Developed Countries Fund

2018 - 2022

October 2018

URU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 54: Organisationsstrategi for Danmarks samarbejde med Global Environment Facility (GEF) og Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) 2018-22

Table of contents

1. Objective……………………………………………………………………. 2

The Organisation……………………………………………………………

3. Key strategic challenges and

opportunities…………………………………...

4. Priority areas and results to be

achieved……………………………………...

Budget……………………………………………………………………….

6. Risks and assumptions………………………………………………………. 7

Annexes

II.

III.

IV.

List of GEF Implementing Agencies

GEF-7 core indicators and sub-indicators

Comparison of GEF-6 and GEF-7 Targets

Tool box for Organisation Strategies: priorities, objectives and indicators

GEF-7 replenishment of resources

URU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 54: Organisationsstrategi for Danmarks samarbejde med Global Environment Facility (GEF) og Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) 2018-22

1. Objective

This Organisation Strategy (OS) provides the strategic considerations for the cooperation between

Denmark and Global Environment Facility (GEF) including the Least Developed Countries Fund

(LDCF), which is managed by GEF. The OS forms the basis for the Danish contribution to GEF, and

it is the central platform for Denmark’s dialogue and partnership with GEF. It sets up Danish priorities

for GEF’s

performance within the overall framework established by GEF 7

replenishment (2018-2022).

In addition, it outlines specific goals and results vis-à-vis GEF that Denmark will pursue in its cooperation

with the organisation. Denmark will work closely with like-minded countries, especially Norway in the

joint GEF council seat, towards the achievement of results through its efforts to pursue specific goals

and priorities.

2. The organisation

The GEF was established in relation to the first Rio Conference in 1992, with a mandate to preserve

global environmental benefits, and it serves as finance mechanisms for the Rio Conventions, e.g. climate

change, biodiversity, desertification.

GEF’s mission is to safeguard the global environment by supporting

developing countries in meeting their commitments to multiple environmental conventions and by

creating and enhancing partnerships at national, regional and global scales. The GEF is the principal

financial mechanism for several conventions including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Since its establishment,

the GEF has provided over $20 billion in grants and mobilized an additional $88 billion in financing for

more than 4000 projects in 170 countries.

By preserving global environmental benefits, the GEF plays an important role in achieving the aims of

several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in particular SDG 13 on climate action, SDG 14

regarding life below water, and SDG 15 regarding life on land. With a strong focus on gender through

the promotion of

gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls in support of the GEF’s

mandate to achieve global environmental benefits, the GEF also directly contributes to SGD5 on gender

equality. Through

GEF’s investments aimed at transforming key economic systems, the GEF

also

contributes to the achievement of SDG 2 on no hunger, SDG 7 on access to energy, and to some extent

SDG 12 on sustainable production and consumption. In addition to this, with primary objectives of

fighting land degradation, mitigating the effects from climate change and rebuilding natural resource

based livelihoods, the GEF reduces some of the underlining causes of fragility and conflict, which in turn

may lead to migration.

The GEF has 183 member countries, which are represented in the GEF Council by 32 constituencies.

The GEF is governed by an Assembly held every fourth year, and the council that meets twice a year. In

the council Denmark currently shares a seat as alternate member with Norway who is the council

member. Based on a mutually agreement between Denmark and Norway the division of responsibilities

in the council may change during the implementation of GEF-7. The GEF council is the main governing

body of the GEF comprising 18 constituencies from recipient countries (16 from developing countries

and 2 from countries with economies in transition) and 14 constituencies from developed countries. The

decision on the council are made by consensus. In absence of consensus decision are made by a double

weighted majority. Affirmative vote representing both a 60% majority of the number of participants and

a 60% majority of the contributions. The World Bank acts a trustee for the fund. The Trustee helps

URU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 54: Organisationsstrategi for Danmarks samarbejde med Global Environment Facility (GEF) og Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) 2018-22

mobilize GEF resources; disburses funds to GEF Agencies; prepares financial reports on investments

and use of resources; and monitors application of budgetary and project funds. The Trustee creates

periodic reports that contain an array of fund-specific financial information.

The GEF secretariat is located in the World Bank in Washington, D.C. The Secretariat, which coordinates

overall implementation of GEF activities, is led by a Chief Executive Officer (CEO)-Chairperson, who

is appointed for a four-year term by the Council. The Secretariat consist of around 75 staff and

implements decisions of the Assembly and the Council, coordinates and oversees programs and ensures

policies are implemented. GEF projects and programmes are implemented by 18 Implementing Agencies

(IAs), mainly UN organisations and multilateral development banks (MDB), but recently also WWF,

Conservation International etc. (see annex I for a full list of IAs). Projects and programmes are generated

by the IAs in cooperation with developing countries, which are provided with an envelope of funding

according to the System for Transparent Allocation of Resources (STAR formular). STAR aims to

allocate resources to countries in a transparent and consistent manner based on global environmental

priorities and country capacity, policies and practices relevant to successful implementation of GEF

projects and programs. The STAR indices consist of a global benefit index, country performance index,

and gross domestic product index.

Within GEFs mandate is also the umbrella organization and host for five funds each with a more specific

focus. One of these is the

Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF)

where Denmark has been

supporting since the fund was established in 2001. The LDCF, also established under the UNFCCC,

addresses the special needs of the current 47 Least Developed Countries (LDCs) that are especially

vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change. The LDCF aims to reduce the vulnerability of

sectors and resources that are central to development and livelihoods, such as water, agriculture and food

security, health, disaster risk management and prevention, infrastructure, and fragile ecosystems. The

LDCF supports the preparation and implementation of National Adaptation Programs of Action

(NAPAs) and the National Adaptation Plan (NAP). The LDCF plays an important role in the climate

finance architecture by: a) piloting and demonstrating technologies, techniques, and business models for

adaptation; b) supporting policy and strategy frameworks that enable and enhance adaptation and

resilience mainstreaming; and c) identifying opportunities for scale-up through other sources of climate

and development finance. By 2017, the Fund had approved around US$1.2 billion for the funding of

projects and programs in 51 countries, leveraging more than US$4.8 billion in financing from partners.

The GEF is the managing body of the LDCF. As such, the

GEF’s operational policies

(e.g. fiduciary,

gender and safeguards), procedures and governance structure are applied to the LDCF. The LDCF

Council is the main governing body of the LDCF and takes specific decisions on e.g. LDCF Strategy and

funding proposals. The Council meets two times a year and functions as an independent board of

directors, with primary responsibility for developing, adopting, and evaluating LDCF policies and

programs. It is comprised of 32 members who represent GEF member countries, 14 from donor

constituencies and 18 from recipient constituencies. As decisions are made by consensus, two-thirds of

the Members of the Council constitute a quorum. Members in the GEF Council and the LDCF Council

are almost identical. However, as Norway does not support LDCF, Denmark is a single seat member of

the LDCF Council.

URU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 54: Organisationsstrategi for Danmarks samarbejde med Global Environment Facility (GEF) og Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) 2018-22

The LDCF follows streamlined and simplified procedures in order to facilitate expedited access to the

Fund by the LDCs. In order to ensure sound financial management, the LDCF follows the GEF’s

fiduciary standards, result-based frameworks, and monitoring and evaluation practices. The LDCF

follows GEF operational policies only with a few exceptions.

3. Key strategic challenges and opportunities

Ahead of the 7

GEF replenishment, the sixth comprehensive evaluation of the GEF (OPS6) was

conducted by the Independent Evaluation Office (IEO), based upon 26 thematic and geographic sub-

evaluations. The evaluation concludes that GEF occupies a unique niche in the finance landscape with

its formalised multifaceted environmental mandate, enabling integrated solutions to the challenges at

hand. Despite limited funding, the GEF is the only specialized public international institution that

addresses global environmental issues beyond climate change alone. With the

”STAR allocation-system”,

GEF delivers a relatively predictable and equitable distribution of funds to countries in their quest to

address environmental issues of national priority and meeting their obligations under the various

conventions. The support to Least Developed Countries (LDCs) has increased, but the support to Middle

Income Countries

(MIC’s)

remains critical in relation to the environmental challenges they face.

Overall GEF’s project and

programme performance is good. However, the sustainability of results after

project closure remains a challenge. The evaluation found that only 63% of the OPS6 projects were rated

as having outcomes that were likely to be sustained, primarily due to weak financial sustainability.

However, the evaluation concludes that GEF has contributed to reduce the global and local

environmental stress, and played a catalytic role. The integrated programmes that address inter-connected

environmental challenges are necessary and relevant, though the actual design of some of these

programmes is too complex, and it is difficult to point at the added-value of GEF. Specifically, GEFs

results-based management system focus too little on impacts and there is limited availability of evidence

that demonstrates the value added or additionally of a program over a set of projects.

The Multilateral Organisation Performance Network (MOPAN) is currently undertaking an evaluation

of GEF, which is expected to be published in the beginning of 2019. The Department of Multilateral

Cooperation and Climate Change (MKL) will carefully assess the results from the evaluation and take

recommendations relevant to Denmark’s key priorities into consideration in future engagement with

GEF.

GEF has been under financial pressure during the 6th replenishment, due to the USD exchange rate. The

full potential for mobilisation of private sector (finance) has not been fully utilized and the GEF will need

to adapt its strategy to improve private sector engagement. GEF has progressed in terms on integration

of gender and equality and results-based management, though there is still room for improvement in the

operations. As a result of the GEF-7 replenishment process fewer and more relevant indicators have

been selected with the aim of significantly enhancing

the GEF’s ability to sufficiently capture, monitor,

analyse and report on results. This has been in line with Danish interventions at the biannual council

meetings. The upgraded results framework contains eleven core indicators and associated sub-indicators

that span all five focal areas (biodiversity, climate change, land degradation, international waters, and

chemicals and waste). The specific GEF-7 core indicators and sub-indicators are presented in annex II.

Comparison of GEF-6 and GEF-7 Targets is included in annex III.

URU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 54: Organisationsstrategi for Danmarks samarbejde med Global Environment Facility (GEF) og Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) 2018-22

During the replenishment negotiations the main issues included resource allocation and optimization,

co-finansing and mobilization, distribution of funds across the environmental themes, and the level of

flexibility. As a result of the 7

replenishment biodiversity will receive the largest share of GEF allocation

of focal areas with 31,9% of total allocation (compared to 29,2% in GEF-6) whereas climate changes

will receive 19,8% of the total allocation (compared to 28,4% in GEF-6). This significant reduction in

funding to climate change reflects a changing funding landscape with newly established finance

mechanisms such as the Green Climate Fund (GCF). As a consequence, the GEF has through the GEF-

replenishment process aimed to redefine its niche and strategic positioning and focus more strongly on

focal areas such as biodiversity, international waters and land degradation.

LDCF is working to attract new funds as demand for financial support from the LDCs is significant in

all the targeted sectors. The LDCF has currently a pipeline of projects requiring a total of USD 156

million in new funding. The

“case for investment”

and strategic prioritization of new funding is outlined

in a new strategy on adaptation to climate change and operational improvements (2018-2022) adopted at

the latest Council meeting in June 2018. The strategy is designed to be complementary to the efforts to

support adaptation by the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and also enhances gender responsiveness to

further promote gender mainstreaming. Moreover, the strategy seeks to support climate adaptation action

anchored in the areas of GEF’s comparative advantage, which are:

a) ability to deliver country-driven

and global adaptation support; b) experience in designing and implementing integrated solutions; c) a

focus on innovative approaches and project design; and d) demonstrated track record of delivery.

The current underfunded pipeline of important programs is significant and new Danish financial support

will have a substantial and significant importance for the LDCF operations and will finance approximately

15% of the current pipeline of programs.

4. Priority areas and results to be achieved

The GEF and LDCF organisation strategy maintains attention to the Danish key priorities from earlier

GEF organisation strategies. These priorities are likewise identical with the priorities in the formal Danish

mandate for the GEF 7

replenishment negotiations, where Denmark succeeded in influencing the GEF

programme. Denmark will actively participate in the biannually GEF and LDCF Council meetings

towards the achievement of the priority areas. Prior to council meetings, the Danish council member will

work closely with the Norwegian counterpart to decide on meeting objectives and priorities and prepare

instructions. Main outcomes from council meetings including technical and financial reporting and

progress made on GEF-7 results framework will be subsequently circulated to relevant units in MFA.

Denmark will also actively participate in the newly established GEF Private Sector Advisory Group,

which will provide inputs to the Secretariat’s proposal for a strategy on private sector engagement.

order to drill from Danish experience on attracting private investments, the Danish representative in the

council will coordinate closely with relevant units in the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA).

Denmark will also closely follow the implementation of the GEF gender equality action plan as well as

actively contribute to the GEF Working Group on Environmental and Social Safeguards. To ensure a

fact-based input, during the implementation process the responsible unit will try to engage the Danish

Ministry of the Environment and Food, relevant NGOs that have signed a strategic partnership

agreement with MFA such as Care Denmark and World Wildlife Fund for Nature as well as relevant

authorities and stakeholders. The priorities are presented below and the toolbox in annex IV contains

URU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 54: Organisationsstrategi for Danmarks samarbejde med Global Environment Facility (GEF) og Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) 2018-22

more information on priorities, objectives and indicators. The priority area regarding oceans is only valid

for GEF.

Priority

Gender

Equality

Rationale

Women are hit harder by

environmental

degradation and climate

change. GEF

interventions need to

integrate gender equality

in order to deliver better

outcomes

Results to be achieved

Operationalisation of the

recently approved gender

strategy and action plan.

Improvements in percentage

of projects that have

conducted a gender analysis

or equivalent socio-economic

assessment

Relevance

Gender still not

sufficiently integrated in

GEF activities. Only 66%

of projects have

conducted a gender

analysis or

equivalent socio-

economic assessment. A

gender strategy and plan

was approved in June

2018 and focus in GEF

programme is now on

operationalization.

Danish Development and

Humanitarian Policy

prioritise gender equality

GEFs private sector

engagement is still not

sufficient and the private

sector should be viewed

more broadly than just as

a source of financing.

Only 43% of respondents

to IEO’s survey agreed

that the GEF’s ability to

engage the private sector

is a comparative

advantage,

Danish Development and

Humanitarian Policy

prioritise private sector

engagement

The continued rapid

growth in the production

and use of plastics will

have a severe and

deleterious effect

on the GEF’s ability to

deliver its objectives in

many areas including

climate change mitigation,

biodiversity and

sustainable cities

GEFs M&E system

should be further

strengthened to enable

the GEF to demonstrate

its results and serve as

input to the

council’s

decisions

Monitoring

Through GEF

score card and

through IEO’s

evaluations (of

completed

projects)

Private

Sector

Engagement

In order to sufficiently

preserve global

environmental benefits

and reverse unsustainable

global trends the private

sector will need to play

an essential role.

Formulation and

implementation of a new

strategy on private sector

engagement. Expansion of

the use of non-grant

instruments and

improvement in % of

respondents to IEO’s survey

that

agree that the GEF’s

ability to engage the private

sector is a comparative

advantage

Through

financial

reports and

IEO’s

evaluations (of

completed

projects)

Oceans

Results

Based

Management

The production of

plastics increased by

more than twenty-fold

between 1964 and 2015,

with an annual

output of 322 million

metric tonnes (Mt), and is

expected to double by

2035, and almost

quadruple by

2050

GEF’s effectiveness in

fulfilling its mandate is

ultimately determined by

the global

environmental benefits

delivered through the

activities it funds

Mainstream circular economy

principles

into GEF’s overall

strategy and development of

circular economy indicators

relevant to the GEF:

Through

IEO’s

evaluations (of

completed

projects)

Implementation of an

updated policy on monitoring

and evaluation.

Improvements in

GEF’s

ability to in a timely and

accurate manner capture and

report on specific results at

the project, program and

portfolio levels

Through GEF

score card and

through IEO’s

evaluations (of

completed

projects)

URU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 54: Organisationsstrategi for Danmarks samarbejde med Global Environment Facility (GEF) og Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) 2018-22

A review of the GEF/LDCF organization strategy, including a review of results achieved for the four

priority areas, will be conducted half way through the period of implementation. Decision on the specific

format (purely Danish or joint review) will be decided at a later stage.

5. Budget

The total global budget for GEF 7

programme is $4.1 billion compared to $4.4 billion for GEF-6. A

primary reason for the decrease in the total budget is the halving of the contribution from the USA. The

Danish pledge to the 7

replenishment is DKK 450 million (2,28 % of the total contribution to GEF).

See annex V for a table of contributions among contributing partners for GEF-7. The Danish

contribution and timing of the appropriations are shown in the table below. Please note, that the

disbursement plan may be changed before submission to the Council for Development Policy. The

contribution is given in the form of core support. During the GEF 6

replenishment (2014-2018)

Denmark’s contribution amounted to DKK 435 million.

Denmark has contributed with a total of USD

340 million since GEF was established.

Denmark also plans to make a contribution of DKK 150 million to the LDCF in 2019. The total Danish

contribution from 2001 and up to now amounts to DKK 377 million making Denmark the 7

biggest

financial contributor to LDCF since its establishment.

Year

appropriation

2018

450 mill DKK

2019

0 mill DKK

2020

0 mill DKK

2021

0 mill DKK

Total

450 mill DKK

Core contribution

GEF

Programme

Timing

Appropriation

450 mill DKK

0 mill DKK

0 Mill DKK

450 mill DKK

The MFA will communicate GEF and LDCF results through relevant media and use of SoMe. MKL will

likewise communicate with and inform relevant Danish embassies about the GEF and LDCF projects

and programmes in “their” countries, both before they are approved (with invitation to comment), and

when implementation commence. This will enable communication in-countries about GEF, LDCF and

Danish contributions. For programmes and projects particularly relevant to Danish bilateral support

targeted engagement with relevant Danish embassies will be done with a view to identify potential

overlaps and synergies.

6. Risks and assumptions

Risk identification and management are delegated to the project or program level where the responsibility

lies with the implementing agencies (IA). Each IA that implements GEF projects must have sufficient

systems and capabilities in place to ensure robust efforts to combat fraud and corruption. The IAs have

to meet GEF minimum fiduciary standards, as well as the minimum standards on environmental and

social safeguards (currently being updated), in terms of their ability to systematically identify, monitor,

and manage risks. IAs compliance with those standards is assessed every four years, or at any time the

standards are raised. Risks and their management are documented at all stages of the project cycle:

concept, CEO Endorsement/Approval of a fully developed project, annual project implementation

URU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 54: Organisationsstrategi for Danmarks samarbejde med Global Environment Facility (GEF) og Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) 2018-22

reports, mid-term reviews, and terminal evaluations. The Secretariat reviews the information provided at

concept stage and CEO Endorsement/Approval, and seeks clarification where needed.

The World Bank's Multilateral Trusteeship and Innovative Financing (DFPTF) department is at the

forefront of the World Bank's engagement in global funds and innovative financing initiatives. The World

Bank is currently Trustee for 22 Financial Intermediary Funds (FIFs), including the GEF. The World

Bank, as trustee to the GEF, provides a set of agreed financial services for the GEF that involve receiving,

holding and investing contributed funds, and transferring them when instructed by the GEF. The

following matrix provides an overview of the most significant risks identified.

Type of risk

Institutional

Context

Ways to mitigate

With the aim of increased private Through its board seat and member of the

sector engagement this can lead to Private Sector Advisory Group, Denmark

reputational risk

will seek to provide advice to the Secretariat

on how to best engage the private sector in

the implementation of the GEF-7 strategy

Programmatic Too little focus on impacts and IA Implementation of an updated policy on

performance in the GEF results- M&E and continued focus on sustainability

based management system and of results after project closure (e.g. in IEO

inadequate

sustainability

of evaluation). Denmark will through its board

project and program outcomes

seat keep the Secretariat accountable to

improve on these issues

Contextual

Increased competition from other As part of the 7

replenishments process

finance mechanisms including the GEF accommodated this changing funding

Green Climate Fund (GCF)

landscape by reducing funding to climate

change. Through its board seat Denmark

will seek to ensure that the comparative

advantage of GEF and LDCF is fully utilized

in project/programs

Impact

Low

Medium

Additional risks include shrinking donor contribution (especially from the US), misuse of funds, and

low buy-in from the World Bank.

URU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 54: Organisationsstrategi for Danmarks samarbejde med Global Environment Facility (GEF) og Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) 2018-22

Annex I

–

List of GEF Implementing Agencies

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

Asian Development Bank (ADB)

African Development Bank (AfDB)'s

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)'s

Food and Agriculture Organizaton of the United Nations (FAO)'s

Inter-American Development Bank (IADB)'s

International Fund for Agricultural Development

(IFAD)’s

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)’s

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)’s

United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)’s

The World Bank Group (WBG)’s

Conservation International (CI)

Development Bank of Latin America (CAF)

Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA)

Foreign Economic Cooperation Office, Ministry of Environmental Protection of China (FECO)

Brazilian Biodiversity Fund (FUNBIO)

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

West African Development Bank (BOAD)

World Wildlife Fund (WWF-US)

URU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 54: Organisationsstrategi for Danmarks samarbejde med Global Environment Facility (GEF) og Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) 2018-22

Annex II - GEF-7 core indicators and sub-indicators

URU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 54: Organisationsstrategi for Danmarks samarbejde med Global Environment Facility (GEF) og Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) 2018-22

URU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 54: Organisationsstrategi for Danmarks samarbejde med Global Environment Facility (GEF) og Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) 2018-22

Annex III - Comparison of GEF-6 and GEF-7 Targets

URU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 54: Organisationsstrategi for Danmarks samarbejde med Global Environment Facility (GEF) og Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) 2018-22

Annex IV

–

Tool box for Organisation Strategies: priorities, objectives and indicators

The relevance of the organisation in relation to the development in international framework conditions and new actors

Present and new challenges

Relevance in relation to the Legitimacy/representation

Overall effectiveness (as a

development

in global power

platform

and

norm

structures, including new actors

entrepreneur, operatively)

The environment-, and specifically GEF and GCF has, together with a few GEF council has more GEF is the oldest and most

climate-, finance landscape has other institutions in the landscape, representatives

from experienced fund/facility in the

changed since the last replenishment of initiated a cooperation with the aim to developing countries than landscape, and as such more

GEF. The Green Climate Fund, GCF ensure

complementarity

and developed countries (16+2 vs mature. GEF inspires other

has been established, many other coherence. This is in line with the 14). GEF is unique by a institutions in terms of how

minor

funds,

facilities,

and

guidance given by the Conventions’

number

developing best to design a facility.

programmes are in place. However; Conferences of the Parties (COP). A countries both contributing However, it is not a

GEF is unique by covering all the Rio number of the larger MIC’s,

such as

and receiving funding from developmental institution per

conventions and a few more China, are increasing support to GEF. GEF. No changes envisaged, se, thus gender considerations,

environmental agreements, and as such US has significantly reduced its support though a GEF governance engagement with private sector

well-placed to work on integrated to GEF after the current US

“review” agreed to take place in

etc. are still areas with room for

approaches and ensure synergies and government came to power. In the 7

period.

improvement.

co-benefits. GEF is likewise well- addition the changes in the economic

placed to test approaches in a smaller power balance fuelled a discussion

scale, which other more investment about optimisation of resources, with a

oriented facilities can scale up.

stronger focus on countries most in

need, and less focus and/or higher

demands for co-financing in MICs.

The relevance and effectiveness of the organisation in relation to the international development and humanitarian agenda, and the

organisation’s reform process to stay relevant and efficient.

Objectives for contributions to SDGs Objectives for the operational Objectives for the organisational efficiency

and other key development and effectiveness

humanitarian goals

URU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 54: Organisationsstrategi for Danmarks samarbejde med Global Environment Facility (GEF) og Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) 2018-22

GEF is highly relevant to the Agenda

2030 and SDGs as sustainable

development is its raison d’etre.

Specifically GEF is contributing

directly to SDG 6 on water, 7 on

energy, 11 on sustainable cities, 12 on

sustainable

consumption

and

production, 13 on climate, 14 on

oceans, 15 on land (biodiversity etc.),

besides an indirect contribution to

many more SDGs.

As mentioned above GEF cooperate

with other funds/facilities. In addition

GEF works in partnership with 183

countries, and has a large network of

civil society organizations, works with

the private sector around the world,

and receives continuous inputs from an

independent evaluation office and a

scientific panel. In general, it relies in

the IE’s operational capacities and their

adherence

principles

development effectiveness etc.

GEF is a mature institution, located in the World Bank. The

implementation model with few implementing and very

experienced IA’s,

implies that the secretariat

is smaller. GEF is in

general well-managed, according to the independent evaluation.

During the replenishment negotiations, discussions took place on

the administrative budget, which some donors felt is too high, and

which was reduced slightly. The more underlying challenge of the

GEF model is that the secretariat is not implementing itself and

emphasise strategy-policy setting and the upstream part of the

project cycle, creating pipelines of good projects. However, this

implies less attention to the implementation, operationalisation,

and follow-through of policies, targets etc. during

implementation. One example is the RBM, where the council

receives information about expected results (results expressed in

targets in approved projects), but not actual results data from the

field. It is thus difficult to actually manage based on results.

Likewise on gender and other policy issues, where policies are put

in place, but the GEF model with IA and the secretariat focus,

can lead to deficient operationalisation.

The relevance of the organisation in relation to Denmark’s priorities in development policy and humanitarian action

The relation between the core mandate Concrete contributions within the

The

organisation’s

Opportunities for influence.

of the organisation and the Danish Danish priorities in development effectiveness and relevance.

humanitarian priorities and priorities in policy.

development policy.

Danish humanitarian and development See previous box

Yes, GEF is highly relevant, as Denmark shares a council seat

policy underlines environment, climate

earlier mentioned. There are with Norway, and are as such

change and green growth in two

likewise opportunities for able to influence the direction

contexts: 1) In transition and growth

asserting Danish strategic of the GEF decisions.

economies, while growth can lift

interests and strongholds Denmark was likewise active in

millions of people out of poverty, it

within green development. An the replenishment negotiation,

may often have adverse effects such as

example is GEFs support to and influenced the wording of

unsustainable consumption patterns

the work of UNEP-DTU GEF

programme

that

lead

pollution

and

partnership as implementing documents agreed.

contamination of air, soil and water,

partner in the program

Capacity

URU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 54: Organisationsstrategi for Danmarks samarbejde med Global Environment Facility (GEF) og Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) 2018-22

increased waste problems, as well as

environmental degradation and loss of

biodiversity. 2) Living conditions in

LDCs deteriorate as a consequence of

climate changes and degradation of the

environment, which aggravate and

accelerate risks such as instability,

fragility and migration. The core

mandate of GEF that includes focus

on sustainable natural resource

management,

environmental

protection, innovative technological

and financial solutions, sustainable

energy etc. This mandate contributes

directly to fulfilling several priority

areas of the aforementioned Danish

strategy.

Building Initiative for Transparency

(CBIT) Global Coordination

Platform.

The

programs

objective is to establish a

Global Coordination Platform

(GCP) to support the CBIT

management, and enable global

coordination,

maximize

learning opportunities, and

enable knowledge sharing to

facilitate transparency

enhancements.

URU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 54: Organisationsstrategi for Danmarks samarbejde med Global Environment Facility (GEF) og Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) 2018-22

Annex V

–

GEF-7 replenishment of resources