39188 Global Environment Facility Evaluation Office ________________________________________________________________________ The Evolution of Expanded Opportunities to Executing Agencies and the Legal Framework ________________________________________________________________________ Technical Paper 1 Part of the Evaluation of the Experience of the Executing Agencies under Expanded Opportunities in the GEF, conducted by the GEF Evaluation Office. Not edited November 2006 By: Omar Lyasse and André Aquino Task Manager: Siv Tokle Team Leader: Oscar Gonzales-Hernandez 1 1. Introduction This paper aims to help further the understanding on why and how the involvement of the Executing Agencies (ExAs) in the GEF Partnership came to be, the process that was followed to achieve this and the results of the efforts thus far achieved towards creating a conducive operational, policy and legal environment to effectively enhance the involvement of the Executing Agencies. This paper is organized into three sections. Following the introduction, the first section presents a summary of the history and rationale for ExA involvement. Section two provides an overview of the progression, key features and challenges in the legal framework for the expanded opportunities. The final section depicts the current status of access and the recent developments affecting ExA involvement in the GEF Partnership. 2. History and Rationale for expanded opportunities Cooperation between the ExAs and Implementing Agencies (IAs) within the GEF context is not new. The ExA involvement in the GEF Partnership dates back to the GEF Pilot Phase. The first jointly implemented GEF projects were a collaborative project between the World Bank and Inter American Development Bank (IADB) in Costa Rica1 and a collaboration between UNDP and Asian Development Bank (ADB) to implement the Asia Region Greenhouse Gas Strategy Development project2 (GEF/C.2/Inf.2) took place. Additionally, a number of other multilateral organizations3, Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), foundations, bilateral agencies and the private sector have also cooperated - and continue to do so - with IAs as executing agencies in the traditional sense of undertaking project activities. A general overview of the participation of different types of agencies is provided in Table 1, as derived from the Joint Evaluation database. Table 1. Involvement of different types of executing agencies with GEF projects from Pilot Phase to GEF-3 (in number of projects) GEF Phase Multilaterals NGOs Bilaterals Foundations Others4 Private Sector Pilot 31 3 1 2 GEF-1 42 3 1 1 1 2 GEF-2 73 55 11 15 11 GEF-3 86 38 13 4 14 7 After the GEF restructuring in 1994, the prospect of opening up the GEF partnership by expanding the opportunities for other Agencies was discussed by the Council in its annual and intersessional meetings5. One of the earliest Council documents dealing with the expansion of the GEF Partnership (i.e. Collaboration between the World Bank and Regional development Banks in GEF implementation: a status report, 1994) was based on a meeting between the WB and the four Regional Development Banks (RDBs) with the International Fund for Agriculture 2 and Development (IFAD) attending in an observing capacity. This document stated in paragraph 6 "RDBs are expected to attend ... sessions of the GEF Operations Committee ..." and paragraph 7 "the Bank will support this capacity building (of RDBs) from its own GEF administrative budget until such time as administrative budget allocations are disbursed to the RDBs..." giving the impression that RDBs were, in 1994, already expected to: (a) participate in the precursor of the current GEF coordination meetings and (b) in the then foreseeable future be allocated an administrative budget to support their non-project activities. However, the expanded opportunities only started to take concrete shape after the first GEF Assembly in 1998. At this Assembly, it was recommended to seek greater involvement by other entities to address the needs of an evolving GEF, as captured by the following statement from paragraph 11 of the first GEF Assembly: "GEF should promote greater coordination and co- financing of its activities from other sources, including bilateral funding organizations, and should expand opportunities for execution of activities by those entities referred to in paragraph 28 of the Instrument....". The Council developed criteria and options for enhancing these opportunities and adopted a new policy governing this in 1999 based on the Expanded Opportunities for Executing Agencies Council document (GEF/C.12/10). In this document, examples were given of ongoing collaborations between Implementing and Executing Agencies, particularly between the World Bank and RDBs6. The RDB experience grew into a more explicit demand for expanded opportunities, especially for direct access to GEF resources, as noted in the Review of Progress in Expanded Opportunities for Executing Agencies (GEF/C.15/4, 2000) which also identified the barriers that needed to be overcome to expand the opportunities. The rationale for the Expanded Opportunities, from the GEF perspective, was to address the need to mobilize additional resources and alleviate constraints in project delivery, as described in paragraph 44 of Expanded Opportunities for Executing Agencies (GEF/C.12/10, 1998). Additionally, it was expected that expanding the opportunities for executing agencies would help stabilize the GEF administrative budget (paragraph 49 in GEF/C.12/10, 1998). The latest review of the experience of the Executing Agencies (GEF/C.22/12, 2003) summarized that the 3 main objectives for the policy on expanded opportunities were to (a) increase the capacity of the GEF to address strategic operational needs, including in new and emerging areas, and to respond to country driven priorities and the requirements of the conventions; (b) increase the diversity of experience from which the GEF can draw for innovative interventions in operational program areas, and (c) leverage additional resources for the protection of the global environment by expanding the GEF's capacity to mobilize financial and technical resources and co-financing for its projects. The four Regional Development Banks, IFAD and the two specialized UN agencies, namely the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) were admitted to the GEF partnership under expanded opportunities under the following set of criteria, which are derived from the policy established in Expanded Opportunities for Executing Agencies (GEF/C12./10) and described in section II of the Council document Criteria for the Expansion of Opportunities for Executing Agencies (GEF/C.17/13): · Strategic Match: GEF's Corporate Business Plan serves as a guide to delineate the degree to which an agency's expertise and comparative advantage meets the strategic needs of the 3 GEF. Gaps in the GEF portfolio are in principle identified through the Overall Performance Studies (OPS) and Annual Performance Reports. These assessments (OPS and APRs) can simultaneously serve as a measure to assess on a regular basis whether the strategic needs of GEF are met by the existing Partnership Agencies and portfolio distribution. · Capacity: The institutional capacity and effectiveness of the agency in GEF operational program areas. The three following criteria are applied (a) Project and portfolio management experience; specific technical expertise; record on environmental, social and sustainable development issues; and safeguard, public disclosure and fiduciary policies; (b) experience with GEF projects or with projects relevant to future GEF operations, and; (c) the strength, depth, and diversity of agencies' contacts in member countries, including their field presence and technical cooperation assistance programs. · Complementarity: The size of the agency's regular work program in relevant fields and the extent to which future GEF projects could build upon that work program and the agency can leverage resources and commitments from other partners and co-financiers. The above criteria were intended to be used by the GEF Secretariat, "in consultation with the Implementing Agencies" (paragraph 4 in GEF /C17./13), to guide the inclusion of any prospective ExA on behalf of the Council, by conducting a due diligence institutional review. Upon acceptance by the Council of the due diligence review, and the finalization of the legal and procedural arrangements by the GEF Secretariat and the Executing Agency, an associated plan for the ExA's GEF operations in the area of their strategic match was to be developed and subsequently reviewed annually (paragraph 5 in GEF /C17./13). An example of a due diligence review for IFAD can be found in section III of the Criteria for the Expansion of Opportunities for Executing Agencies (GEF/C.17/13). The procedures that aspiring ExAs would have to follow in order to be considered for the expanded opportunities remain rather vague, as this evaluation could not establish whether there was a formal application process proposed to the Council to guide the inclusion of aspiring Executing Agencies under expanded opportunities. The only reference made to such effect has been found in the document Expanded Opportunities for Executing Agencies (para 58 in GEF/C.12/10, 1998 which states: " ... such organizations could, at their discretion, approach the GEF Secretariat to be considered for assuming full responsibility for project implementation and direct accountability to Council.". Thus far, only the four RDBs, FAO, UNIDO and IFAD have been included. The ExAs have expressed an unabated interest to continue and increase their participation in GEF. This is evidenced by their constructive cooperation with non-project activities such as their involvement in several task forces and the Joint Evaluation of the Activity Cycle and Modalities (initially proposed by ADB), notwithstanding the fact that the financing of their participation in these areas generally had to come from their own resources. The main reason for the ExAs continued interest is that the GEF provides an opportunity to reinforce their contributions to the global environmental agenda by providing additional resources to support their existing efforts. Furthermore, their GEF participation enables them to more efficiently respond to country demands. Involvement in the GEF Partnership also strengthens their environmental profile, enhances their image by working on current global issues, and allows them to transcend the 4 boundary limitations and country specificity usually found in traditional Agency projects. Annex A of this paper provides summaries submitted by the Agencies on their mandate to work in environmental matters and capacity to work in the GEF focal areas. Technical Paper 3 contains a SWOT analysis of the Executing Agencies involvement in the GEF. 3. Legal Framework Legal Context. The Executing Agencies were granted access to GEF financing in a phased process, with different levels of access at different times. Consequently, the policies on ExAs' direct access took considerable time to operationalize. Although the first discussions on the role of Regional Development Banks were initiated in June 1992, up to the present Executing Agencies have not been fully incorporated into the GEF System. The process of establishing the necessary policy and legal framework for the participation of the ExAs became in itself a barrier to their effective involvement. It was as early as 1992 that the GEF Assembly encouraged Implementing Agencies to work with Regional Development Banks on framework agreements to enable them to act as Executing Agencies within the restructured GEF, but it was not until May 1999 that the Council granted the four Regional Development Banks (the African Development Bank (AfDB), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), ADB, and IADB) direct access for determining project eligibility and for approval of PDF-B grants. Over three years later, in October 2002, ADB and IADB were granted expanded access to Project Development Facility Block A (PDF- A), medium-size projects (MSPs) and full-size projects (FSPs), in response to policy recommendations of the Third Replenishment of the GEF. Direct access was expanded to the UN Agencies (IFAD, UNIDO and FAO) and to EBRD and AfDB one year later, in November 2003. (The signing of the Memoranda of Understanding and Legal Financial Agreements between the Trustee (acting on behalf of the GEF) and several ExAs took place from June 2004 to June 2005, when all but one Executing Agency completed the legal requirements to have direct access to GEF resources. The requirements for the EBRD are expected to be completed in 2006. The lengthy process to finalize the signing of the agreements is mainly attributed to a lack of clarity on what requirements needed to be fulfilled, both for the Memoranda of Understnding (MoUs) and the Legal Financial Agreements dealing with the fiduciary issues). When analyzing the evolution of the legal framework underpinning the ExA involvement under Expanded Opportunities, the following distinct periods can be distinguished: Period 1: Case-by-case arrangements between IAs and ExAs (from June 1992 to October 1998) As from June 1992, the RDBs expressed interest in being involved in the GEF system, particularly in allocation and management of GEF resources. In October 1992, the RDBs and the World Bank decided to propose to the GEF: (a) RDB autonomy to identify, appraise, supervise, monitor, and evaluate GEF operations according to their own procedures, but following GEF technical review standards and project design criteria; (b) RDB representation in the Implementing Committee of the GEF Scientific and Advisory Panel (STAP); and (c) 5 encouragement of joint programming exercises. In December 1992, the Participants' Assembly encouraged IAs to work with RDBs on Framework Agreements to enable them to act as executing agencies in the restructured GEF. However, the Assembly emphasized that the implementation function should continue with the three established IAs, and that they were not in favor of earmarking resources to the RDBs or UN agencies. This period was marked by an ongoing and diversified collaboration between IAs and ExAs for project execution. This collaboration took place on a "project-by-project" basis, through project- specific agreements. Period 2: Staggered expansion of Expanded Opportunities (from October 1998 to November 2003) In October 1998, the GEF Council discussed the paper "Expanded Opportunities for Executing Agencies" (GEF/C.12/10), which argued that the projected growth in GEF business would need to come from increased involvement from ExAs, especially given the need to stabilize GEF administrative costs and to address constraints regarding delivery capacity. The paper described and analyzed three scenarios: (a) business as usual, (b) expanding shared implementation with ExAs, and (c) introducing full responsibility by ExAs. These options would be revised in May 1999. The first concrete step for Expanded Opportunities came in May 1999, when the Council granted the four RDBs (AfDB, ADB, EBRD, IADB) direct access to GEFSec for determination on project eligibility and for approval of PDF-B grants. The Council limited the IAs' accountability for ExAs activities under expanded opportunities to conducting the due diligence review to ensure compliance with the policies and procedures of the GEF. Once such compliance was assured, the ExAs would be solely accountable for respecting the policies and procedures and for assuring the quality, implementation, and financial integrity of their GEF projects. However, an IA would still remain fully accountable to the Council for project implementation. In May 2000, FAO and UNIDO were granted direct access for PDF-B in the focal area of POPs. The first signs of uncertainty as to the roles and responsibilities among IAs and ExAs were acknowledged by the Council in its next meeting, when, in November 2000, it stressed the need to develop a clearer definition of "accountability" and to clarify the division of labour among IAs and ExAs. The Council suggested the following to be the responsibilities of the IA: (a) assessment of whether the ExAs can comply with the policies and standards of GEF; (b) an assurance of quality at entry of project proposal in the work program based on project preparation; and (c) a defined role for the IA in the evaluation process at project completion. In May 2001, The Council approved the criteria for selecting new ExAs, based on strategic match with the GEF corporate plan, capacity, and complementarity. These criteria were later used for the expansion of the access to GEF funding to the UN agencies. In this same Council meeting, IFAD was granted direct access to PDF-B for projects in the Land Degradation focal area. FAO and UNIDO were also granted direct access for Enabling Activities in POPs. 6 A second wave of expansion of direct access to GEF funding came in 2002 and 2003. In October 2002, IADB and ADB were given direct access to FSPs, MSPs and PDF-A. One year later (November 2003) IFAD, FAO, UNIDO, AfDB and EBRD were given the same level of access, although the UN Agencies remained restricted to some of their areas of expertise. Period 3: Final agreements and new challenges in GEF-4 (from November 2003 to the present) The formalizationof the expanded opportunities for the ExAs entailed the signing of Memoranda of Understanding and Financial Procedures Agreements between the GEF and each ExA. This process started in 2004 and is still ongoing. IADB was the first agency to finalize the procedural requirements, followed by ADB and UNIDO in 2004. In 2005, FAO, AfDB and IFAD followed suit. EBRD is still negotiating the Memorandum Understanding and Financial Procedures Agreements with the GEF. The GEF Third Overall Performance Study (OPS3) found that the roles and responsibilities of IAs and ExAs are not always clear, especially as it affects collaboration and competition. While the majority of projects in the pipeline are well aligned with agencies' comparative advantages, a number of them cross over into the comparative advantage of other agencies and/or are not necessarily aligned with the proposing agency's mandate. The OPS3 illustrated this by citing examples regarding the UNDP and the World Bank doing both technical assistance projects and investment projects, whilst they were originally tasked to focus on specific categories. Similarly, the UNEP has typically done global and regional projects but is proposing and implementing national projects (source OPS3). The inclusion of ExAs brings additional competition and will likely further affect the existing equilibrium between competition and collaboration. The OPS3 also observed that ExAs have "uncertain" mandates and that some still face a steep learning curve in order to function competitively in the GEF market. Towards the end of the GEF-3 Replenishment period, Agencies noted an increasing `unhealthy competition' among IAs and ExAs, undermining cooperation at the local level. Respondents of the Joint Evaluation Survey stated that "one of the weaknesses of the GEF Activity Cycle is that it encourages competition among agencies for projects, which tend not to discuss projects with one another". In face of the new Resource Allocation Framework, for which programming is already taking place, competition for scarce resources might intensify around a smaller pool of potential projects in some countries. Challenges posed by GEF-4 and the Resource Allocation Framework (RAF). The newly introduced RAF has transferred a great deal of responsibility to the country level to add impetus to the aspect of country ownership. The RAF has been generally welcomed by most Agencies as it provides for more predictability regarding resource allocations. However, the Executing Agencies stated not to have been adequately involved in the planning and implementation of this mechanism. A certain degree of skepticism remains on the assistance and the training that the National Focal Points have received to guide the process of identifying their GEF priority areas and the likely Agencies that will assist the countries in project development and implementation. This is exacerbated by the fact that it is not entirely clear at the moment what criteria are being used to set the country priorities within the GEF context and to what extent the Country Focal 7 Points have been made aware of the comparative advantages of all the GEF Partnership Agencies. The establishment of the new Resource Allocation Framework at country level, while potentially increasing local ownership, may therefore pose special problems for an increased participation of Executing Agencies. Given their low involvement so far in the GEF, countries may perceive ExA involvement in project preparation as risky and consequently might prefer to seek collaboration from the established Implementing Agencies to expedite their project development and approval. In sum, the staggered process of creating the legal framework for granting direct access to GEF resources added to the complexity of the GEF system. As a consequence, the evaluation finds that it was difficult for project proponents to know what Agency had access to what resources at what point, which also hampered the timely realization of the expanded opportunities. The decisions regarding ExA direct access took considerable time to be fully operationalized, a sign of a lack of pro-active planning to address the full set of policies and procedures needed. Business practices, both at the institutional and project level, remained largely the same after the incorporation of ExAs, reflecting policies formulated with only the three IAs in mind. Among these practices are the issues of fees, Corporate Budget and imprest account for PDF-As. The milestones depicting the key events and decisions that shaped the current involvement of ExAs within the GEF Partnership are presented in Annex B. Current status An overview of the current access of the ExA to GEF resources as it pertains to their respective fields of expertise and the relevant GEF focal areas is provided in Table 2. All four Regional Development Banks have access to all focal areas, while the UN Agencies are restricted to specific Focal areas that were deemed most aligned with their core expertise to match GEF strategic needs. Table 2: Access to GEF Resources by Executing Agencies under Expanded Opportunities Executing Agency Access to PDF-B Resources Access to Project Resources Asian Development Bank (ADB) Direct Access Direct Access African Development Bank (AfDB) Direct Access Direct Access European Bank for Reconstruction and Direct Access Direct Access7 Development (EBRD) Inter American Development Bank (IADB) Direct Access Direct Access Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Direct Access for agricultural Direct Access for agricultural POPs POPs projects enabling activities Direct Access for agricultural POPs projects. International Fund for Agriculture and Direct Access for Land Direct access for Land Degradation Development Degradation projects enabling activities (IFAD) Direct access for Land Degradation projects. United Nations Industrial Development Direct Access for industrial Direct Access for industrial POPs Organization (UNIDO) POPs projects. enabling activities Direct Access for industrial POPs projects Note: Direct access implies that the Executing Agency can directly submit proposals to the GEF Secretariat. Indirect access implies that the Executing Agency can submit the proposal only through one of the three Implementing Agencies. 8 The joint meeting of the GEF Secretariat with the Implementing and Executing Agencies, the GEF Trustee and the Evaluation Office, (Oct 13, 2006) revealed that the Council will receive recommendations by the GEF Secretariat in December 2006 to further enhance the involvement of Executing Agencies within the GEF Partnership. Specifically, it will be proposed to Council to (a) enlarge the scope of scope of engagement of UNIDO and FAO to reflect their true comparative advantages, (b) abolish the corporate budget for the three Implementing Agencies and that the project cycle management fee be set at 10% for all Agencies, (c) expect from all Agencies to participate in Secretariat-led corporate activities, including communications and outreach (Source: Minutes of the Joint meeting, 10/13/06). This latest development represents a departure from the status quo which limited the involvement of the ExAs in GEF's corporate activities since this was mainly within the realm of the three Implementing Agencies, with budgetary provisions (Corporate Budget) that enabled these Agencies to fully take part in GEF structures. The recent decisions by the GEF CEO seems to acknowledge that the GEF has evolved since that time with the inclusion of the additional partners, who all bear significant cross-cutting responsibilities in their respective regions and areas of expertise. It is therefore expected that the proposed measures will remediate the existing imbalance in the GEF's consultation and decision making structures. This will most likely help to mitigate the constraints that have resulted in sub-optimal and at times strained relationship between the GEF Secretariat, the IAs and the ExAs. Even though the involvement of the ExAs in the upstream work of the GEF had improved in recent times, there are still significant impediments caused by the lack of transparency in the decision-making processes and unpredictability of financing, especially with regard to policy shifts and resource allocations. The lack of budget allocations to the ExAs for upstream work also limits their involvement, since this typically has to be funded from their regular budgets. Some examples of the track record of the ExAs' involvement in more strategic environmental fora and GEF non-project activities are depicted in Box 1, which gives an indication of both the remaining gaps and the added value the ExAs could bring to the GEF Partnership. 9 Box 1: ExA involvement at strategic levels Policy/Strategy development: Regional development Banks: The RDBs are participating in the World Bank led process for the preparation of the "Clean Energy and Development Investment Framework". As part of this effort, the RDBs are preparing prepared their own "Sustainable Energy and Climate Change Initiatives. These initiatives "define the problems and challenges facing the respective regions and proposed strategic pillars and priority lines" for their respective action. IFAD: IFAD has been participating in the GEF led major analytical review on Resource Mobilization and the Status of funding activities related to Desertification and Deforestation. Furthermore, IFAD is the host agency for the" Global Mechanism of the UN convention to Combat Desertification" which has linkages with the GEF Land Degradation Focal Area. IFAD has been prolific in this context and managed to get 185 loans (value US$ 1.85 billion) and 708 grants (value US$118 million) approved between 1996 and 2005. FAO/UNIDO: FAO, jointly with UNEP, provided the Interim Secretariat for the "Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade", a spin-off of the Stockholm Convention. FAO and UNIDO have a supporting role in the preparation of the National Implementation Plans (NIPs) by UNEP and the World Bank regarding the Stockholm Convention. Executive Coordination Meetings: The ExAs were not expected nor were they invited to attend these meetings. The agendas for these meetings are not routinely circulated to the Executing Agencies. The same applies to the minutes, but this seems to have changed recently since the minutes of the Executive Coordinators meeting of September 21, 2006 were distributed to all partnership agencies. Decisions taken within these meetings, especially those that have a direct impact on the ExAs involvement are not always communicated in a timely and formal way to the ExAs. Resource Allocation Framework: The pattern regarding the involvement of ExAs in the RAF system has been irregular. From the interviews with the ExAs, it transpired that some agencies have been asked for comments during the development of the RAF, others were not. Some agencies also participated in sub-regional consultation meetings on the RAF. However, apart from the pilot program, ExAs have not been adequately involved in the National Dialogue Initiative which also provided assistance and training of National Focal Points to guide the process of identification their national priority areas as it relates to GEF . This evidently will affect the likely agencies to be involved in the subsequent project development and implementation since it is not clear whether the potential role and comparative advantages of the ExAs has been sufficiently made known to the National Focal Points. Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP): Participation of the ExAs in the STAP has been marginal. The Panel has fifteen members who are internationally recognized experts in the GEF's key focal areas. Members are appointed by the Executive Director of United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), in consultation with the CEO of the GEF, the Administrator of UNDP, and the President of the World Bank. All Partnership Agencies, including ExAs, have been requested to forward their recommendations to reconstitute the STAP roster of experts. However, the ExAs were not involved in the establishment of the Search Committee for the Partial Reconstitution of STAP in October 2005 (source GEF/C.28/2), nor in the revision of the procedures for an independent selection of project reviewers from the STAP roster (GEF/C.28/Inf.5). 10 Box 1: ExAs' involvement at strategic levels, continued. Focal Area Task Force meetings: In the past ExAs did not participate inthese meetings since they were limited to the IAs. These task forces consider strategic priorities in specific focal areas and have, inter alia, contributed significantly towards the development of indicators and tracking tools to measure the results of the GEF operations. With the introduction of the Expanded Opportunities and the gradually increasing recognition of the added value that the ExAs can represent, some ExAs are now participating, albeit not routinely, in those focal area task forces where they have direct access and recognized subject matter expertise. Monitoring and Evaluation: The ExAs have participated through their GEF focal points, operational staff and evaluation units in recent GEFEO exercises, particularly the Joint Evaluation of the GEF Activity Cycle and Modalities and the present evaluation. However, Executing agencies do not seem to have been involved in decisions regarding incremental cost (IC) calculations nor in the recent evaluation of the subject. According to the IC evaluation most project documents register weak compliance against GEF requirements for incremental cost assessment and requirements but no differentiation is provided between projects prepared by IAs and ExAs. The overarching recommendation in the IC evaluation was to rethink and reformulate current incremental cost requirements, processes and methodologies used to more effectively incorporate incremental reasoning into the substance and design of the projects. It would be advisable to ensure active participation of all Partnership Agencies, IAs and ExAs, in this exercise to create a sound foundation and critical mass of support for the new IC guidelines to be developed. 11 Annex A: Agency Summaries The agencies prepared the following summaries which describe their mandate to work in environmental matters, capacity to work in the GEF focal areas, field presence and involvement in non-project work (Conventions, Task forces, other technical groups, STAP, etc). The submissions of the Agencies were edited for size and format, not for substance. 12 A1. Asian Development Bank Overview The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has been working closely with GEF since the mid-1990s. Even prior to approval of its direct access to GEF in 2002 and completion of financial and administrative agreements in 2004 that made this relationship operational, ADB had brought forward a number of projects. As of October 2006, GEF has approved or accepted into its pipeline 20 ADB projects. Of these, 12 moved to implementation, resulting in $54.3 million in GEF financing for ADB projects and $2.75 million in GEF project preparation funding. These same projects have generated roughly $350 million in direct "co-financing" against GEF inputs and approximately $3 billion in anticipated co-financing as part of longer term programs. Mandate of ADB to Work on the Environment ADB is owned by its 66 members, 47 from Asia and the Pacific and 19 from other parts of the globe. Its mission is to help its developing member countries (DMCs) reduce poverty and improve the quality of life of their citizens. The organization's overarching goal of poverty reduction is anchored on the principle of achieving "environmental sustainability". ADB's Medium Term Strategy II, covering the period of 2006-2008, re-affirms "managing the environment" as one of the organization's five strategic priorities. The 2002 Environment Policy contains five elements that guide ADB's institutional strategy ­ many of which relate directly to GEF's operational strategies and focal areas: (i) Promoting environment and natural resource management interventions to reduce poverty directly; (ii) Assisting DMCs to mainstream environmental considerations in economic growth; (iii) Helping maintain global and regional life support systems that underpin future development prospects; (iv) Building partnerships to maximize the impact of ADB lending and non-lending activities; (v) Integrating environmental considerations across all ADB operations. In addition to the Environment Policy, ADB also has formulated sector-specific policies, covering, for example, Forestry (1995), Fisheries (1997), Energy (2000), Water (2001) that further spell out ADB's mandate and strategies in each of these sectors. Like the Environment Policy, these recognize and support relevant multilateral environmental agreements and protocols emanating from these conventions. These policies also relate to the various GEF focal areas, in particular biodiversity, climate change, land degradation and persistent organic pollutants. In addition to stand-alone environmental interventions, environmental considerations are mainstreamed into ADB's work across a number of key sectors, including energy, transport, water and urban development. For example, in July 2005, ADB responded to the post-Gleneagles Investment Framework by Multilateral Development Banks by launching an Energy Efficiency Initiative with the goal of introducing improvements in both energy production and consumption that will mitigate the increase of greenhouse gas emissions while meeting the growing energy demands of the region. Under this initiative, ADB expects to provide $1 billion a year for investments in clean energy and energy efficiency (including sustainable transport). In the same interest, ADB is preparing to launch a Carbon Market Initiative,which will provide an opportunity to use market mechanisms established through the Kyoto Protocol to address energy security and climate change objectives. 13 Capacity to Work in GEF Focal Areas Project design and implementation generally is handled by ADB's operational departments (five Regional Departments and the Private Sector Department), which have their own environment and sector specialists. These efforts are supported by the Regional and Sustainable Development Department, within which the Environment and Social Safeguard Division (RSES) serves a principal coordination function for global environment concerns ­ including facilitating GEF operations. The relationship with GEF is managed by RSES and backstopped by a "GEF Facilitator" based in RSES under the supervision of the RSES Director, who is ADB's GEF focal point. An "Environment Community of Practice" and less formal "Environment Network" provide vehicles for in-house information sharing among ADB's environment specialists and other interested staff, and global environmental issues are regular topics of discussion. ADB's environment and sectoral experts frequently organize regional conferences and workshops either at ADB's Manila headquarters or in its DMCs on topics of relevance to ADB's operations, and these frequently relate to or center on global environmental concerns. ADB also maintains a broad network of partners ­ including bilateral and multilateral development agencies and several leading international environmental organizations ­ as well as individual experts to supplement its in-house knowledge. ADB also carries out continuous efforts to keep its staff informed about and engaged with global environmental issues. This is sometimes coupled with in-house seminars on the GEF, but it also extends to regular seminars and conferences on these subjects. Mainstreaming efforts also extend to ADB's interactions with its DMCs, and GEF cofinancing of ADB projects is an important vehicle for integrating efforts to achieve global environmental benefits as part of ADB's investments in infrastructure and local environmental improvement. ADB maintains an active environment website (www.adb.org/environment) which regularly features global environmental topics. Strong inter-sectoral coordination also is undertaken to develop and implement country-driven frameworks for concrete investments in biodiversity conservation, sustainable land management, climate change mitigation and so forth. ADB's Field Presence in Asia and the Pacific ADB has established a strong presence in Asia and the Pacific region and also maintains liaison offices in North America and Europe. There are at present 19 ADB resident missions in Asia, 2 sub-regional offices in the Pacific, a special liaison office in Timor-Leste and representative offices in Tokyo for Japan, Frankfurt for Europe and Washington, DC for North America. The ADB field offices are listed below: Resident Missions Regional Missions Afghanistan Kazakhstan Papua New Guinea Pacific Liaison and Azerbaijan Kyrgyz Republic Sri Lanka Coordination Office, Bangladesh Lao PDR Tajikistan Sydney, Australia Cambodia Mongolia Thailand PR China Nepal Uzbekistan South Pacific Sub-regional India Pakistan Vietnam Office, Suva, Fiji Islands Indonesia 14 The resident missions provide the primary operational interface between ADB and the host DMC, including ADB's active engagement at the country level with policy dialogue and sectoral analysis. These field offices are recognized intellectual resource bases on development issues in these countries. Standard functions of the resident missions include the following: · promoting relationships with government, civil society, and the private sector; · engaging in policy dialogue and support; · reporting on country activities; · coordinating development assistance; · assisting in external relations and information dissemination. Several specific functions carried out by the missions also directly relate to the development, delivery, monitoring and evaluation of ADB programs and projects. More complex and resource intensive, these functions include: · country programming; · project and technical assistance processing; · portfolio management and project administration; · economic and sector work and analyses. Involvement of ADB in Non-Project GEF Work ADB has engaged strategically with GEF on broader policy/corporate matters through the provision of comments on key documents, participation in GEF-sponsored meetings and by taking part in a variety of policy discussions. Such engagement may be seen in ADB's participation in: (i) all three GEF Assemblies; (ii) most GEF Council Meetings; (iii) BD, CC and LD GEF Task Force meetings (and occasionally POPs); (iv) UNCBD, UNFCCC and UNCCD COPs(/MOPs) and the organization of GEF side events (such as one on partnership approaches to land degradation at the most recent UNCCD COP); and (v) other GEF-related meetings such as the recent Subregional Consultations on the RAF held in Malaysia and Fiji. ADB also has provided comments on a number of GEF policy/discussion papers. Examples include those relating to: the proposed private sector policy, joint evaluation of the GEF activity cycle and modalities (ADB also provided over $60,000 in financing plus in-kind staff contributions), comparative advantages of GEF Agencies, incremental costs, a range of focal area discussions and the evaluation of GEF Executing Agencies' experience. 15 A2. The African Development Bank Environmental Policy at the Bank The core objectives of the Bank's Environmental Policy approved in 2004 are to improve quality of life of the people of Africa by helping to preserve and enhance the ecological capital and life-support systems across the African continent. Specifically, the Bank's Environmental Policy promotes a long-term view of development in its Regional Member Countries ( RMCs) and aims at the following key goals; enhance the regenerative and assimilative capacity of RMC's ecological capital; reverse the impoverishment process in Africa by improving access of the poor to environmental resources; help RMCs build their capacity to bring about institutional changes to achieve sustainable development; and strengthen partnership with international agencies and networking to coordinate interventions ni environmental sustainable development and to promote information exchange and sharing of best practices. The overall priority areas of the new Environmental Policy include: (1) reversing land degradation and desertification; (2) protecting the coastal zones; (3) protecting global public goods; (4) enhancing disaster risk management8 capabilities; (5) promoting environmentally sustainable industry; (6) increasing awareness, institutional and capacity building; (7) environmental governance; (8) urban sustainable development and population growth; (9) and civil society organizations. To put this policy into operation the Bank uses a set of strategic approaches: (i) mainstreaming environmental sustainability considerations in all Bank's operations (ii) strengthening existing project and country strategy environmental assessment procedures and develop new environmental management tools; (iv) assisting RMCs to build adequate human and institutional capacity to deal with environmental management; (v) improving public consultation and information disclosure mechanisms; (vi) building partnerships to address environmental issues, harmonize policies, and disseminate environmental information; and (vii) improving monitoring and evaluation of operations with specific regard to environmental sustainability. The Bank's commitment and capacity to work in GEF focal areas The AfDB is committed to establish new and strengthen existing partnerships on the environment with other development partners, Bank member countries, and non-governmental organizations; and to promote (sub-) regional integration and private sector initiatives in support of Africa's environment. The AfDB is also committed to broaden its engagement into GEF operations, including its participation in GEF policy and strategic activities and related efforts to help increase GEF effectiveness9 and more fully integrate into GEF decision making; Particular areas of concentration by the Bank in the coming years within the overall environmental priority areas of its policy are expected to be (1) climate change, including adaptation and renewable energy and energy efficiency; (2) land degradation, with emphasis on desertification and deforestation as the two most pressing environmental challenges in many African countries; and (3) water management and fisheries, with an emphasis on national and transnational programs to maintain and improve access to and preservation of water resources. However, AfDB's mandate and contributions will not be confined to these three areas of focus. Future activities will be determined in close consultation with the Bank's Regional Member Countries and in full respect of country ownership and priorities. AfDB's three areas of concentration in the coming years correspond closely to the three GEF focal areas of (i) climate change, (ii) land degradation, and (iii) international waters. But directly or indirectly AfDB supported projects and programmes may also address the other GEF focal areas of (iv) biodiversity and (vi) persistent organic pollutants, and (vi) ozone layer. 16 In 2003 the Bank became a GEF executing agency with direct access to GEF full project resources. The operational procedures for direct access were finalized only In 2005. The newly created Sustainable Development Division (formerly Poverty Reduction and Sustainable Development Unit - PSDU) in the Bank's Operations Policy and Compliance Department acts as the GEF focal point for the Bank. Recently, starting in 2006, the Sustainable Development Division has significantly increased its efforts to work closely with operational departments in building GEF pipelines of projects and programs and assisting staff in preparing and processing GEF proposals. The division has also started an internal GEF training program. The sustainable development division is also mandated, with respect to the environmental area, to ensure compliance with environmental policies and environmental assessment procedures and in this context provide support to operational staff to mainstream environment in project and country operations. The division is also in charge of promoting and undertaking training and capacity building for Bank staff and Member Country representatives as well as to develop new policies and tools for mainstreaming environmental sustainability in Bank operations. The Bank's operational departments/divisions provide the direct links between the Bank and the RMCs. A 2003/04 Evaluation on Environmental Management of AfDB Projects by the Bank's independent evaluation office (OPEV) concluded that the Bank has been successful in developing updated environmental and social policies, procedures and guidelines. With regard to their application, improvements were suggested with respect to better and more systematically mainstreaming the new environment policy and guidelines into the operations of the Bank; improving communications with RMCs; harmonization of categorization and assessment procedures with other donors; and strengthening monitoring and evaluation capacity on environmental issues. While working on these issues internally, the Bank is also determined to closely work with GEF in increasing the effective utilization of GEF resources and tools. Field Presence specific to GEF's affairs The African Development Bank currently has 14 country and (sub-) regional offices, many of them established in the last few years10. Country offices are equipped with a limited number of senior management, administrative, and technical staff, the latter mostly in sectors with important projects/programmes in the respective countries. The Bank currently has few, if any, technical staff based in country offices that specialize on cross-cutting themes such as the environment and environmental sustainability. A new policy to enhance decentralization is under preparation. This eventually could lead to more technical environmental staff in country and (sub-) regional offices. Involvement in non-project work of GEF AfDB fully supports the four conventions guiding the GEF: the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. AfDB is participating in the following non-project strategic work and task forces: 1) Land degradation task force (regularly) 2) Climate Change task force including the adaptation task force (regularly) 3) Biodiversity (not regularly) 17 In addition AfDB provides on a more or less regular basis and as requested feedbacks on strategy papers (like the ones on GEF's new focal areas strategies and priorities). The AfDB also has been commenting on GEF council papers (eg. the programming paper for the LDCF on adaptation or the one on the comparative advantages of IAs and EAs). AfDB is also contributing to ad-hoc exercises like the joint evaluation of the project cycle and other strategic and knowledge products - like the recent study on resources mobilization for sustainable land management / KM Land. AfDB has also in some cases, has been providing comments on other agencies projects and programs. The AfDB is also active in all discussions that are ongoing among EAs. 18 A3. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Mandate of the EBRD to work in the environment. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development ("EBRD") was established in 1991 to provide support to the emerging private sector in the countries of central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Today the EBRD uses the tools of investment banking to help build market economies and democracies in 28 countries from central Europe to central Asia. The EBRD is the largest single investor in the region and mobilizes significant foreign direct investment beyond its own financing. It is owned by 60 countries and two intergovernmental institutions. Despite its public sector shareholders, it invests mainly in private enterprises, usually together with commercial partners. It provides project financing for banks, industries and businesses, both new ventures and investments in existing companies. It also works with publicly owned companies, to support privatization, restructuring state-owned firms and improvement of municipal services. The Bank uses its close relationship with governments in the region to promote policies that will bolster the business environment. The mandate of the EBRD stipulates that it must only work in countries that are committed to democratic principles. Respect for the environment is part of the strong corporate governance attached to all EBRD investments. Capacity to work in the GEF focal areas The EBRD is the largest investor in its region and leverages many times more funding from private sector sources. It makes extensive use of Technical Cooperation (TC) funds to support project development and implementation activities. During 1991­2005, the Bank's TC commitments, which directly support investments totaled 687 million. Most of these funds were used to assist with the preparation and implementation of EBRD investment projects. The value of the investments directly supported by donor-funded TC at the end of 2005 was 34.5 billion (of which the Bank had contributed 14.5 billion). The leveraging effect was 49:1 or, in other words, 49 were mobilized in investment capital for each euro of TC funding provided. It possesses a range of dedicated country and sector banking teams including an Energy Efficiency and Climate Change Team and a Municipal EnvironmentalInfrastructure Team (covering such areas as water supply, waste-water collection and treatment, solid waste management, district heating, and urban public transport). These two teams in particular, are experienced in the use of grant funding to both support the development of projects and to blend with commercial funds. The EBRD adopts a flexible approach and responsiveness to the particular needs of its clients. This approach is similar to the one of commercial banks. A project has to be commercially viable to be considered. Financing is provided on a commercial basis. The EBRD recognizes that investors face a wide variety of risks and also offers an extensive range of risk sharing structures which provide additional commercial security and political comfort. The Bank draws on its government contacts, special creditor status and sizeable portfolio to assess and bear risk and to open the options for financing. The EBRD shows complementarity with, rather than displacement of, private sources of finance. The Bank invests only where it can provide added value, by investing in projects that could not otherwise attract financing on similar terms. EBRD works in partnership, drawing other investors and serving as a catalyst to attract additional investment *When the EBRD has all the necessary information, a project typically takes three to six months from initiation to signing the project documents. Financing can range from maturities of one year for working capital or trade financing projects to 15 years for long-term sovereign infrastructure projects. 19 Field presence The EBRD currently operates in 28 countries within the region and has at least one resident office within each of these. Some larger countries, such as Russia and Kazakhstan, also have sub- regional offices to bring EBRD staff closer to the business needs. Regional offices are typically staffed by a mixture of international and national staff and provide an in-depth knowledge of the social, economic and political conditions within the country and help to generate and implement new projects as well as monitor existing operations. Involvement in non-project work Participation in non-project work has been selective. For example, the EBRD has no connection with the conventions, their secretariats or any policies or strategies developed by them. The EBRD does reference various conventions within their Environmental Policy (Section 42.) and commits itself to supporting their implementation through the investments it makes. The EBRD has participated in some task force meetings on climate change, usually by teleconferencing particularly where there is a topic of interest. The EBRD does not currently participate in any other technical groups or STAP. 20 A4. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations A4. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations Mandate of FAO to Work in the Environment Three global interrelated goals are stated in FAO's Basic Text, which describes the mandate and sphere of competence of the organization: · Access of all people at all times to sufficient nutritionally adequate and safe food, ensuring that the number of chronically undernourished people is reduced by half by no later than 2015. · The continued contribution to sustainable agriculture and rural development, including fisheries and forestry, to economic and social progress and the well-being of all. · The conservation, improvement and sustainable utilization of natural resources, including land, water, forest, fisheries and genetic resources for food and agriculture. Priorities for reducing hunger cannot be separated from those for sustainable management of natural resources and ecosystems. The close causal linkages among hunger, poverty and environmental degradation underscore the need for multidimensional approaches to their reduction and have been important considerations in the development of FAO's strategic and programmatic priorities. FAO's Strategic Framework (2000-2015) specifically highlights the twin objectives of sustainable production and natural resource conservation. In adopting this Framework, FAO's member countries confirmed FAO's commitment to help countries and regions develop coherent policies and programmes for efficient and socially desirable management of terrestrial and aquatic resources. The strategy also aims for the conservation, improvement and sustainable utilization of natural resources, with special emphasis on fragile ecosystems and environments at greatest risk. At the same time, it commits to tackle these issues by: · broadening partnerships, · enhancing interdisciplinarity, · capacity building, · knowledge management, and · dissemination of best practices. Through its broad technical expertise, global representation, and strong partnerships with country members, other UN agencies, financing agencies, research institutions, NGOs, civil society organizations and private sector, FAO is working to create a broad, united front against hunger, while improving the conservation and management of natural resources. This, in turn, contributes to global efforts to address critical environmental issues. Capacity to work in the GEF focal areas FAO's Strategic Framework (2000-2015) and Medium-Term Plan 2002-2007 and the GEF Strategy, operational programmes and strategic directions highlight the strategic match between FAO and GEF strategic and programme priorities. This strategic match and FAO's technical capacity to work in the GEF focal areas indicate a full match in several Biodiversity activities, in adaptation and mitigation to Climate Change (full match), in International Waters (full match in catalyzing reforms, on-the-ground stress reduction, address transboundary water concerns and related capacity building, and all operations related to fisheries and partial match in other areas), in Land Degradation (full match in most areas) and finally in POPs (full 21 match in pesticide risk reduction ) . For more details on FAO's comparative advantage in the areas of biodiversity, climate change, international waters, land degradation, and Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), FAO has also produced a series of fact sheets that highlights FAO's expertise, experience and work ­ both GEF and non-GEF - in the following thematic areas: adaptation for agriculture, biodiversity, bioenergy, biosafety, integrated land and water management, international waters, payment for environmental services, Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), sustainable fisheries management, sustainable forest management, and sustainable land management. This match has also been summarized in a more detailed matrix which is also available. It is through its capacities for marshalling international agreements and partnerships, disseminating information, providing broad in-house technical expertise through networks of regional and national field offices, and mobilizing resources that FAO can best partner with the GEF in promoting a balanced agenda on environment and development and in assisting in better and meeting the needs of FAO's and GEF's common membership. These capacities include: Global convening powers. FAO facilitates some of the world's most important international fora for inter-governmental consultation, building consensus and setting standards in agriculture, forestry and fisheries and is the depository for numerous international treaties and agreements. Broad in-house expertise. FAO's staff of professionals and experts in its Agriculture, Economic and Social, Fisheries, Forestry, Sustainable Development and Technical Cooperation Departments and its Legal Office bring the type of expertise needed to address these issues. Interdepartmental cooperation and processes within headquarters and decentralized regional and sub-regional offices allow FAO to link global natural resources management goals with local needs. FAO commitment to interdisciplinarity and partnerships is put into action through Inter-departmental Working Groups (IDWGs) ­ such as those on biodiversity, bioenergy, biosecurity, biotechnology, climate change, desertification, and sustainable livelihoods ­ that bring together technical expertise from various departments to examine complex issues. Information systems and networks. FAO, a prime provider of data and information on food, agriculture, land, water, fisheries and forestry resources, stands in the forefront of gathering and disseminating such information through its member countries and field projects. Online data bases, Box: FAO builds databases to share knowledge With the support of global networks of experts, FAO compiles and supports a range of world-class reference databases, standards and regulatory norms that make cutting edge and up-to-date information available online to all. FAO sponsors dozens of databases including · the state of: food and agriculture (FAOSTAT), land (TERRASAT), water (AQUASTAT) and aquatic (FISHSTAT) resources; · water administration (FAOLEX); · food safety and quality (WHO/FAO guidelines); · the Global Forest Resources Assessment (FRA); · Global Information and Early Warning System on Food and Agriculture (GIEWS); · Global Information System on Forest Genetic Resources (REFORGEN); · Domestic Animal Diversity Information System (DAD-IS); · Database on Introductions of Aquatic Species (DIAS); · Land Resource Information and Decision Support System (LRIS); · Terrestrial Ecosystem Monitoring Sites (TEMS) of the Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS); Interactive Bioenergy Information System (i-BIS); · Biotechnology in use or in the pipeline in developing countries (FAO-BioDeC); · Fisheries Global Information System (FIGIS) · Fisheries Resources Monitoring System (FIRMS) · Fishing Vessel Monitoring System · Fisheries and Management Systems Fact Sheets, among many others. In addition, FAO contributes to the digital soil map of the world and derived soil properties (FAO/UNESCO), the FAO/IIASA Global Agro-ecological Zones Study (FAO/IIASA), Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands (LADA), land cover information such as Africover and its expansion under the Global Land Cover Network (GLCN). 22 thematic knowledge networks and a new Best Practices Web site pull together and disseminate information to help policy-makers and individuals make better informed decisions, strengthen links and facilitate sharing and exchange of information. Project preparation and resource mobilization capacity. FAO's Technical Cooperation Department, through its programme development and resource mobilization unit (TCAP) and its Investment Centre Division (TCI) and, in turn, their cooperative programmes with bilateral donors and multilateral financing institutions, has been instrumental in mobilizing resources in support of technical assistance, capacity building and investment projects in agricultural and rural development, environment and natural resources management. The FAO GEF Coordination Unit in the TC Department facilitates organization-wide support to GEF projects and the mobilization of co-financing. FAO has worked closely with GEF since its pilot phase. This ongoing relationship has given FAO significant experience and familiarity with ever evolving GEF strategies, priorities and eligibility criteria. At the project level, FAO technical divisions are currently involved directly in the preparation and execution of some 20 GEF projects in the focal areas of POPs, Biodiversity, International Waters, Land Degradation and Climate Change. In addition, through its cooperative programmes with the World Bank, IFAD and other financing institutions, the FAO Investment Centre has assisted in the preparation, appraisal and supervision of some 60 GEF projects, a number of which have been used by the GEF Secretariat as best practices or in its training materials. Box. FAO Investment Centre active engagement in the preparation of GEF projects The FAO Investment Centre Division (TCI), with some 65 multidisciplinary professional staff, operates under cooperative agreements with International Financing Institutions, including several GEF Agencies ­ the World Bank, IFAD and the four regional development banks. The Centre's main role is to help developing countries identify and formulate agricultural and rural development investment programmes and projects for external financing, including a large number of environmental and natural resources management projects. Under these agreements, TCI has assisted the preparation and supervision of more than 60 national and regional GEF projects in Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America and the Caribbean. In the Latin America region alone, this includes 27 projects, amounting to US$520 million in total project costs, of which US$144 million is GEF financing and the remaining US$375.9 million is co-financing. TCI assisted Brazil, for example, in the design of seven projects which address biodiversity protection, climate change and land degradation issues while strengthening local communities, NGOs and national and sub-national environmental agencies, for a total of US$88.6 m of which US$37.4 million is from GEF resources. Global partnerships. FAO works in broad partnership with governments, national, international and non-governmental institutions and civil society to broaden the base of understanding and increase chances for success in addressing existing and future sustainable development and environmental priorities. FAO provides technical advice and support to the multilateral environmental agreements, including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), including the Kyoto Protocol, UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), as well as to other major international agreements and conventions, such as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. FAO furthermore hosts the Secretariat of the inter-governmental Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, the Secretariat of the Rotterdam Convention and the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention, among others. As an example of the high priority FAO attaches to its relations with the CBD, FAO has outposted a Senior Liaison Officer in the Convention on Biological Diversity. 23 FAO's network of field offices FAO has representations in 74 countries; additional 37 countries are covered by double/multiple accreditation with an Assistant FAO Representative or a National Correspondent. In addition, FAO maintains five regional offices, with a full range of technical and operations staff, in Accra (Ghana), Bangkok (Thailand), Cairo (Egypt), Santiago (Chile), Rome (Italy for Europe) and six sub-regional offices operating from Ankara (Turkey), Apia (Samoa), Bridgetown (Barbados), Budapest (Hungary), Harare (Zimbabwe), and Tunis (Tunisia). Five Liaison Offices (Brussels, Geneva, New York, Washington, D.C., and Yokohama) also support the work of the Organization. The extensive network of FAO country representations, outposted technical officers and national correspondents is able to maintain close relationships and to support interdisciplinary collaboration among ministries and other governmental and non-governmental institutions covering agriculture, forestry, fisheries, environment, and economic planning, thereby providing holistic and integrated solutions to global problems. FAO's involvement in non-project work FAO's broad technical expertise in the areas of GEF strategic and programme priorities have contributed to development of several Operational Programmes, particularly OP12 (Integrated Ecosystem Management), OP13 (Agricultural Biodiversity), OP14 (Persistent Organic Pollutants), and OP15 (Sustainable Land Management). FAO has contributed to GEF thinking on programme and strategic directions, such as the strategic directions for GEF-4 in the focal areas of Land Degradation, POPs and International Waters, and in the preparation of numerous GEF Council documents (such as the Forestry paper, Land Coherence paper, Fee structure, Monitoring and Evaluation reports, among others). In June 2002, FAO and the GEF Secretariat jointly sponsored a workshop in Rome on productive uses of renewable energy, and in September 2005 FAO hosted a meeting to review and discuss the draft Council document "GEF Activities related to Forests." FAO participates regularly in the GEF Task Forces on Land Degradation and POPs, and, on a more ad hoc basis, in operational task forces, such as that on the Resource Allocation Framework (RAF). In this respect, FAO has participated in a number of the RAF Sub-regional Workshops, as well as in several Country Dialogue Workshops. Although the GEF Programme on Biosafety Capacity Building is a UNEP- GEF project, it should be noted that FAO has served as a member of the Project Steering Committee. FAO technical staff have also participated in a number of STAP meetings and workshops, such as those on sustainable land management (March 2005 and April 2006), biofuels (July 2005), Managing the Subsurface Environment (September 2005), Strategic Options and Priorities in Groundwater Resources (April 2004), and others and provided comments on related STAP documents. In addition, as a GEF Executing Agency, FAO contributes to and responds to requests for information from the GEF Secretariat on knowledge management and management information systems, financial management procedures, and other corporate type activities, as well as to requests from the GEF Evaluation Office for information and inputs into reviews, including those on the project cycle, project at risk systems, monitoring and evaluation processes, and the comparative advantages papers, and provides other inputs as requested by the GEF Secretariat, Evaluation Office or the GEF Trustee. 24 A5. Inter American Development Bank Mandate to work in the environment IDB's mission in Latin America and the Caribbean is to contribute to the acceleration of the process of economic and social development of its member countries, individually and collectively. The Bank's two main goals are to promote poverty reduction and social equity as well as environmentally sustainable growth. To attain these goals, the Bank focuses its work on four priority areas: (i) fostering competitiveness through support for policies and programs that increase a country's potential for development in an open global economy; (ii) modernizing the state by strengthening the efficiency and transparency of public institutions; (iii) investing in social programs that expand opportunities for the poor; and (iv) promoting regional economic integration by forging links among countries to develop larger markets for their goods and services. Environment has become a cross-cutting issue for development and poverty reduction for the IDB. As such, the Board of Directors approved on January 200611 the Environment and Safeguards Compliance Policy, which has three specific objectives: (i) to enhance long-term development benefits by integrating and mainstreaming environmental sustainability outcomes in all Bank operations and activities, and by strengthening environmental management capacities in its borrowing members; (ii) to ensure that all Bank operations and activities are environmentally sustainable; (iii) to foster corporate environmental responsibility within the Bank. This Policy is an instrument for change for the IDB, considering that it creates the conditions to shift from a standard approach that looks at the environment as a sector to a new approach that is cross cutting and strategic. IDB in the GEF Focal Areas IDB agreed to joint GEF to enhance the Bank's mission and goals. IDB' s relationship with GEF started in 1999 as a limited partner with indirect access through the Implementing Agencies. Since completion of the Memorandum of Understanding in 200412, IDB has had direct access as an Executing Agency under the GEF policy of expanded opportunities. IDB finances operations in several areas which are compatible with GEF focal areas: (i) biodiversity: protected areas, marine and coastal resources, sustainable forestry, biotechnology; (ii) climate change: rural electrification, urban transportation, carbon trade, GHG abatement, adaptation to climate change; (iii) international waters: transboundary watersheds; (iv) land degradation: soil conservation / erosion control, hillside sustainable agriculture; (v) POPs: integrated pest management, agrochemical substitution. To foster its environmental agenda, the IDB has over 60 specialists working in environmental safeguard compliance and environmental project development in its Headquarters and its Country Offices in each of the 26 countries in which the Bank operates. These specialists work in project teams that combine skills in institutional, financial, technical, social and economic issues. IDB also manages technical assistance funds to hire specialized consultants as needed. In addition, IDB has partnerships with bilateral Governments to support specific areas of work: climate change, biodiversity, international waters, and land degradation. There are also other relevant IDB funds to support natural disaster prevention/climate change adaptation and regional public goods. GEF's project design and implementation generally is handled by IDB's operational departments (three Regional Departments and the Private Sector Department, plus the Multilateral Investment Fund), which have their own environment and sector specialists. These efforts are supported by the Environment Division within the Sustainable Development Department (SDS/ENV), which serves a GEF "facilitation" function. By the nature of IDB's interaction with its member countries, all projects ­including GEF 25 initiatives-- are consistent with national priorities and strategies, since Bank programming must be agreed with Ministers of Finance. To date, GEF has accepted into its pipeline 16 IDB projects since the beginning of the relationship. Of these, 6 have been approved13, resulting in $20,29 million in GEF financing and $141 million in direct "co-financing". Additionally, GEF has provided $3,80 million for project preparation. IDB has also engaged strategically with GEF on broader policy/corporate matters through the provision of comments on key documents, participation in GEF-sponsored meetings and by taking part in a variety of policy discussions. Such engagement include IDB's participation in: (i) the last GEF Assembly; (ii) the latest GEF Council Meetings; (iii) BD, CC and RAF GEF Task Force meetings; and other GEF-related meetings such as the recent Sub-regional Consultations on the RAF held in Panama City; (iv) the Evaluation of the Executing Agencies experience with GEF; and (v) the recent Joint Evaluation exercise in New York City. Comparative advantages/competencies for IDB within the GEF Besides the technical capacities and results mentioned above, the nature of IDB's actions are consistent with the GEF purposes. The Council decision regarding the roles of the Regional Development Banks (RDBs) participating in GEF restricts the stated comparative advantage to investment financing. Indeed, according to the decision, RDBs should "support investment projects at the country or multi-country level and mobilizing private sector resources within their respective regions". However, in the case of IDB, its development role and mission also include ­among others--: (i) capacity building and technical assistance; (ii) policy and strategy development; (iii) knowledge and innovation; (iv) national and local governance; and (v) participatory processes and community empowerment. The process of identification, preparation, and approval of IDB projects always require integral approaches. Investments without institutional and capacity building are not considered to be feasible. Field Offices The IDB has offices in each of its member countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. These offices are in charge of program/project administration, focusing on the execution of all IDB operations, including GEF projects. The Bank has hired 3 environmental specialists dedicated exclusively to administer and monitor GEF operations in the field. 26 A6. International Fund for Agriculture and Development MANDATE AND EXPERIENCE IFAD is a specialized agency of the United Nations, dedicated to eradicating rural poverty in developing countries, commenced operations in 1978. IFAD is an innovative partnership among OECD, OPEC and developing countries. Since its establishment, IFAD has invested some USD 9.0 billion (Sub Saharan Africa: 36%, Near East & North Africa: 17%, Asia & the Pacific: 32%, Latin America & the Caribbean: 16%) in over 706 projects and programmes that have reached around 300 million poor rural people. 60 to 80 % of IFAD's investments and grants support community based natural resource management activities. Most of its resources are provided in the form of loans to governments ­ much of it on highly concessional terms; while its grant funds (corresponding to 10% of loans) are provided not only to governments but also to international and national non-governmental agencies. Poverty focus IFAD has recognized the need to address the environmental implications of poverty alleviation through increased environmental considerations in its country programmes. Many IFAD-supported programmes have been implemented in remote and marginal areas, and have targeted some of the poorest and most deprived segments of the rural population, as well as many degraded ecosystems of global significance. This was duly recognized by the 2001 GEF Council which approved the inclusion of IFAD under the expanded opportunities because of its expertise in land degradation, rural sustainable development, integrated land management, and its critical role in the implementation of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification. IFAD has been working intensively in marginal lands, degraded ecosystems and in post-conflict situations and this widens the GEF spectrum of interventions to reach more people and ecosystem in degraded and vulnerable environments. IFAD works towards achieving the MDGs with particular focus on goal 1 (eradicate extreme poverty and hunger), goal 3 (promote gender equity and empower women), and goal 7 (ensure environmental sustainability). Such focus will bring the GEF to work more directly to achieving the MDGs. Country ownership and sustainability IFAD recognizes that vulnerable groups can and do contribute to economic growth. These groups have shown that they can play significant role in holistic and sustainable development, provided the causes of their poverty are understood and enabling conditions are created. Their perceptions of their own opportunities and constraints form the backbone of IFAD's knowledge base. This diversity of people and contexts has led to the accumulation of a valuable body of experience and knowledge. It has also required IFAD to maintain a highly flexible and participatory approach in responding to the specificities of rural development around the world. To expedite delivery, IFAD makes executing arrangements at local level i.e. all IFAD's loans are nationally executed therefore enhancing approach to sustainability. Innovation IFAD is strongly committed to bring innovation to the rural poor by complementing local know how with transfer of new techniques and approaches that can be adapted to local needs. Such efforts are complemented and strengthened with strong knowledge management and dissemination of best practices to wider impact. IFAD has an extensive portfolio of grants for technology development relative to small-farmer agricultural production and productivity challenges. A portfolio that has delivered technical innovations for smallholders and has had an acknowledged impact in strengthening the pro-poor orientation of IFAD's 27 partners in key technology development, including the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) system as a whole. In addition and partly financed by its grant facility, IFAD hosts the global facilities of the Global Mechanism for UNCCD and the International Land Coalition. The two objectives of the grant programme are: adaptive research aimed at reducing rural poverty and associated capacity building. In addition, IFAD has an Innovation Mainstreaming Initiative, seeking to bring together and enhance IFAD's innovativeness in reducing rural poverty in its country programmes. COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES Strategic fit IFAD's activities are guided by the Strategic Framework for IFAD 2002-2006: Enabling the rural poor to overcome poverty. The framework's three strategic objectives are to: (i) strengthen the capacity of the rural poor and their organizations (ii) improve equitable access to productive natural resources and technologies, and (iii) increase access by the rural poor people to financial services and markets. GEF/IFAD projects match the three strategic objectives. The new strategic framework for 2007-2010 is being finalized and will further sharpen the focus of GEF/IFAD interventions. Associating IFAD's lending instruments with GEF grants widens the spectrum of interventions of both organizations and strengthens the development of programmes and projects in marginal lands, degraded ecosystems, and in post-conflict situations. IFAD's operations are driven by the Result Based Country Strategic Opportunities Paper (RBCOSOP), a strategic guiding instrument for the identification of choices and opportunities through which IFAD investments can ensure a positive impact on poverty. GEF projects are fully embedded in IFAD's investments; hence don't require the establishment of new implementation arrangements. The multiplier effect IFAD's flexible programme approach and long-term lending framework, together with its ability to secure high cofinancing ratios, enable it to play a crucial role as a GEF Executing Agency. Catalytic investments mobilize greater resource flows, leading to a considerable multiplier effect for both IFAD and GEF investments. All IFAD-GEF initiatives feature a high level of cofinancing. For each dollar provided by the GEF, so far IFAD has mobilized an average of US$5.26. At present GEF funding of about US$36.0 million has leveraged cofinancing of approximately US$191.0 million. Partnerships IFAD brings added value to the GEF family through its diversified and innovative alliances with development partners: including NGOs, civil society and international organizations. By focusing its development work on farmers' associations and other organizations maintained by poor people themselves, IFAD supports partnerships at the grass-roots community level. These partnerships are essential for translating local efforts into global environmental benefits, seizing new opportunities for accessing innovative financing mechanisms in support of the rural poor and ensuring sustainability. International partners include such organizations as the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries Fund for International Development, the Islamic Development Bank, the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development, and the West African Development Bank. Relevant Policies Safeguards: Environmental assessment of the Fund's lending operations as a regular feature is aimed at ensuring that they are environmentally sound and sustainable (IFAD, 2003. Administrative Procedures for Environmental Assessment in the Project Cycle. President's Bulletin No. 94/03). The broad areas of potential environmental risks and impacts could relate to: 28 · natural environment (air, water and land); · human health and safety; · social aspects (involuntary resettlement, indigenous people, and cultural property); · and transboundary and global environmental issues. Private sector IFAD is building its relationship with the private sector on three pillars: · working with the corporate sector at the project level; · investigating means to access capital markets; and · participating in the ongoing dialogue on new technologies. IFAD's has adopted recently the Private-Sector Development and Partnership Strategy which centres on capital markets and the corporate sector. In addition, a framework for market-based cofinancing of IFAD projects and programmes has been approved.Furthermore, the Fund is also developing guidelines on private sector mainstreaming in its RBCOSOPs. IFAD is also collaborating with Deutsche Bank's Microcredit Development Fund, which provides guarantees to microfinance institutions operating in IFAD project areas, allowing them to access resources from local commercial banks. Sustainability and Management of GEF Operations In August 2004, IFAD established a unit specifically dedicated to enhance IFAD's role as a GEF Executing Agency and to demonstrate its catalytic role in addressing the links between poverty and environmental degradation To better discharge its function as a GEF Agency and comply with GEF Requirements, all necessary procedures have been established, ranging from quality control, streamlined project cycle to financial management and legal procedures. There is also an independent unit for the evaluation of the Fund's operations and policies, Office of Evaluation and Studies (OE). The activities of OE cover various project evaluations and completion reports, thematic studies, and preparation of lessons learned. In-house capacity IFAD has proven in-house capacity in designing and managing GEF projects. The Fund's internal capacity and diversity of expertise (agronomists, economists, sociologists, anthropologists and environmentalists etc) across its various departments, Regional Divisions and the GEF Unit coupled with their deep knowledge of the field reality offers the appropriate profile to design impact-oriented and high quality GEF components. In this respect, PDT (Project Development Teams) and TRC (Technical Review Committee meetings) are multidisciplinary internal review meetings that provide quality insurance functions and enable better GEF project design, implementation and supervision. THE WAY FORWARD IFAD will develop investment programs directed at delivering global environmental benefits as well as significant gains for rural poor people, articulating a stronger role for local partnerships and community empowerment based on community-driven approaches and advocacy for rural poor people. IFAD has prepared a Business Plan for its GEF4 Portfolio. The Business Plan is another strategic tool to further mainstream GEF operations within IFAD's baseline investments and to identify GEF opportunities that would maximize both impact and sustainability. The IFAD-GEF partnership is aiming progressively to broaden the corporate strategies of both organizations by bringing together poverty reduction and sustainable natural resource management as key items on the same agenda. 29 PARTICIPATION IN GEF UPSTREAM ACTIVITIES IFAD has been participating when requested, to the upstream debates such as: · GEF Council documents: GEF4 Programming Framework, Land Coherence Paper, Forest Paper, Monitoring and Evaluation Procedures, Comparative Advantages, Fees Policy, OP15 strategy; as well as, · IFAD is an active member of Land Degradation Task Force, RAF Team (The GEF Secretariat called upon IFAD to share its experience in implementing a similar tool entitled : Performance Based Allocation), IFAD EXPERTISE RELEVANT TO GEF FOCAL AREAS Land degradation: integrated watershed and ecosystem management; combating desertification and land degradation; soil fertility and improved land productivity; policy dialogue and access to productive assets and technology; sustainable management of rangelands and silvo-pastoral resources; forests and agricultural land management and capacity-building and mainstreaming of sustainable land management practices Biodiversity: integrated ecosystem management and community-based natural resource management; agrobiodiversity; sustainable management of national parks and adjacent buffer zones; sustainable rangeland management; promotion of local best practices and traditional know-how; agroforestry and conservation of forest biodiversity. Climate change: payment for environmental services; bio- carbon fund; bio-energy; renewable energy in rural areas; climate change adaptation and mitigation; and carbon sequestration through sustainable land management International waters: integrated watershed management; integrated water resources conservation; harvesting and aquifers conservation, particularly in arid lands. FIELD PRESENCE IFAD has initiated a pilot programme whereby 15 field offices were created 30 A7. United Nations Industrial Development Organization Mandate of UNIDO to Work in the Environment UNIDO's mandate is described in the "UNIDO Strategic Long-Term Vision" (GC.11/8, IDB.30/23), adopted by the UNIDO General Conference in December 2005. UNIDO promotes Sustainable Industrial Development, focusing its interventions in the developing countries and transition economies, and concentrating on three thematic areas: · Poverty reduction through productive activities, where UNIDO focuses on enabling the poor to earn a living and so concentrates on private sector development and agro-industrial development; · Trade capacity building, where UNIDO builds up the technical infrastructure required to partic ipate in international trade, strengthens key export sectors that require support services, and offers programmes to facilitate market access; · Energy and environment, where UNIDO helps its clients solve two fundamental problems: de-linking intensity of energy and material use from economic growth, and reducing the environmental damage that occurs with energy and material use. The services UNIDO offers in the three thematic areas fall into eight Service Modules: · SM1: Private Sector Development · SM2: Agro-Industries · SM3: Industrial Competitiveness and Trade · SM4: Investment and Technology Promotion · SM5: Sustainable Energy and Climate Change · SM6: Environmental Management · SM7: Montreal Protocol · SM8: Industrial Governance and Statistics Capacity to Work in the GEF Focal Areas Overall, UNIDO's comparative advantage for GEF is that it can involve the industrial / private sector in projects that will deliver the global environmental benefits that GEF is looking for. UNIDO's thematic areas and service modules against GEF's focal areas and programming priorities for GEF-4 show strategic matches as follows: Biodiversity Focal Area · Under SM4, UNIDO is involved in biotechnology, biosafety, and related issues. Through this work, UNIDO has: - a strong match in the GEF-4 priority programming area "Capacity Building for the Implementation of Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety". The work of UNIDO on creating regional centers for biosafety training fits completely with GEF's objectives here; - a match in certain aspects of the GEF-4 priority programming area "Generation, Dissemination, and Uptake of Good Practices for Addressing Current and Emerging Biodiversity Issues". This is especially the case for the work on bioprospecting that UNIDO is involved with. · Through SM1 and SM2, UNIDO also has a match in certain aspects of the GEF-4 priority programming area "Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Production Landscapes/ Seascapes and Sectors", where the private sector can be harnessed to mainstream biodiversity. 31 Climate Change Focal Area · Under SM5, UNIDO is involved in industrial energy efficiency and renewable energy, in the latter case with a strong focus on energy for productive use in rural areas. Through this work, UNIDO has: - a very strong match in the GEF-4 low priority programming area "Industrial Energy Efficiency". - a very strong match in the GEF-4 medium priority programming area "Renewable Energy for Rural Energy Services". - a strong match in the GEF-4 high priority programming area "On-Grid Renewable Energy". - a limited match in the high priority programming area "Energy Efficient Buildings and Appliances": UNIDO has applied the same the systems methodology it uses for industrial energy efficiency to large commercial buildings (malls, offices, etc.). · UNIDO is currently evaluating if it has a role (i.e., a role for the industrial / private sector) in the area of adaptation. International Waters Focal Area · Under SM6, UNIDO is involved in water management. Through this work UNIDO has: - a strong match in the GEF-4 priority area "Land-based Pollution (especially Nitrogen) Creating Anoxic "Dead" Zones in Coastal Waters", since industrial activities are one important source of land- based pollution. - a strong match in the GEF-4 priority area "Depletion of Coastal/Marine Fisheries", where GEF recognizes that there should be "engagement of the business community in solutions". - a strong match in the GEF-4 priority area "Conflicting Uses of Water/Climatic Fluctuations in Surface and Groundwater Basins", since industry is such a large user of water worldwide. Land Degradation Focal Area · Through SM1 and SM2, UNIDO is involved in the promotion of rural industries. The creation of rural industries can be used to support sustainable land management, by giving rural populations productive activities that do not require direct exploitation of the land. As such, UNIDO has a focused match in all three Strategic Objectives of this focal area. · Through SM5, UNIDO is involved in biofuels, with a focus on their manufacture. As such, UNIDO has a match for sustainable production of biomass for biofuels, which is an issue under Strategic Objective 4 "Cross focal area synergies and integrated ecosystem approaches to sustainable land management". Field Presence UNIDO currently operates 42 field offices. 11 are regional offices, 17 are country offices, and 14 are "UNIDO desks" within UNDP country offices. Altogether, 89 countries are covered by this network. UNIDO is planning to considerably expand its UNIDO desks in the coming years. UNIDO has also created several networks of partner institutions, a number of which can add vale to GEF projects. There are 26 National Cleaner Production Centres (NCPCs) and 7 related centers and programmes, which can be used to promote industrial energy efficiency and cleaner production more generally. There are 12 Investment and Technology Promotion Offices (ITPOs) and 5 Investment Promotion Units (IPUs), which can be used to bring private sector investment to bear on all GEF focal areas where UNIDO operates. There are 9 International Technology Centers, 3 of which have direct relevance to GEF priorities (International Small Hydro Power Center, International Centre for Promotion and Transfer of Solar Energy, UNIDO-Shenzhen Environment Technology Promotion Centre, all in China). 32 Involvement in Non-Project Work of the GEF UNIDO regularly attends the Council meetings and the General Assembly meetings. UNIDO also participates in person to the GEF's POPs Task Force as well as to the biennial GEF International Waters meetings. UNIDO has also participated in STAP meetings and in various strategic meetings called by GEFSEC. UNIDO also has participated in person to various ad hoc meetings, e.g. a series of regional meetings GEF organized on the TDA/SAP process for LMEs, and some of the sub-regional consultative meetings for the RAF. UNIDO's Evaluation office has been involved in the recent evaluation of the GEF project cycle. Staff members have taken part in person in several planning and review missions as well as an in-country mission. UNIDO also organized one meeting in Vienna for the various agencies involved in the evaluation, in May 2006. Although UNIDO tries to attend as many GEF-related meetings as it can, there are still a significant number that it cannot take part in, because it has neither the budgetary nor the human resources available to do so. 33 Annex B: Milestones that shaped the involvement of ExAs in the GEF Partnership Date Milestone June 1992 ADB, AfDB, and IDB suggested a meeting with WB to discuss the role of RDBs in GEF, particularly in the allocation and management of GEF resources Sep 1994 The 4 RDBs and IFAD (in an observing capacity) meet with WB representatives to review the status of GEF implementation and progress in drafting formal agreements between the WB and the respective RDBs. Oct 1998 GEF Council agrees with the initial proposals outlined in the paper Expanded Opportunities for Executing Agencies for further deepening of the opportunities for RDBs and bilateral assistance agencies in implementing GEF projects. May 1999 Direct access for determinations on project eligibility and for approval of PDF-B grants is granted for the RDBs (AfDB, ADB, EBRD, IDB). May 2000 FAO and UNIDO are granted expanded opportunities. Discussion on the criteria for further expanding opportunities Nov 2000 The Council raised concerns over the roles and responsibilities of IA's and ExAs. May 2001 IFAD is granted Direct Access. FAO and UNIDO are granted access to Enabling Activities in POPs. The Council approved the criteria for selecting new EAs, based on strategic match with the GEF corporate plan, capacity, and complementarity. Oct 2002 ADB and IDB are granted direct access to the Council for GEF funding. Nov 2003 The Council approved direct access for IFAD, EBRD, AfDB, UNIDO, and FAO acting within their agreed scope for GEF operations. From May to Oct 2004 Memorandum of Understanding and Financial Procedures Agreement for direct access to GEF full project resources was finalized for IDB, ADB and UNIDO. From Apr to Aug 2005 Memoranda of Understanding and Financial Procedures Agreements for direct access to GEF full project resources were finalized for FAO, AfDB and IFAD. Jun 2006 The OPS3 found that the roles and responsibilities of IAs and EAs are not always clear, especially with regard to collaboration and competition. Jun 2006 Council supported the conduct of a review of the engagement of EAs by the GEF Evaluation Office, leading to the preparation of an action plan to strengthen their engagement. June 2006 Memorandum of Understanding and the Financial Procedures Agreement for direct access to GEF full project resources still being negotiated for EBRD. 1In the Pilot Phase, the World Bank cooperated with the Inter American Development Bank (IDB) for the Costa Rica: Tejona Wind Power project. 2This particular UNDP-ADB project could not be traced in the PMIS and the Joint Evaluation database, likely due to different labeling. 3The GEF project database can track type of partner but not exact names, i.e. there might be projects where ExAs where involved but this is not easily traceable. 4The term "others" is used in the Joint Evaluation database to cover agencies and organizations that could not easily be placed in the existing categories. 5The Council used the following working documents as a basis for the discussions: GEF/C.2/Inf.2, 1994; GEF/C.3/9, 1995; GEF/C.5/13/Rev.1, 1995 6In the March 1998 Work Program, the World Bank entrusted the lead role on the design and preparation of the Bangladesh: Biodiversity Conservation in the Sundarbans Reserved Forest to ADB. The Bank was systematically empowering the RDBs to play a more substantive role in helping their clients access GEF resources (source: GEF/C.12/10) 7EBRD is still in the process of signing the Memorandum Understanding and Financial Procedures Agreements with the GEF, but this would be finalized in October/November 2006. 8Including adaptation to climate change and climate variability. 34 9As expressed in a statement by Vice President Joseph Eichenberger at the 3rd GEF Assembly Meeting in Cape Town, South Africa in August 2006 10Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Senegal (regional), Mali, Ethiopia, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Gabon (regional), Cameron, Egypt, Morocco, Madagascar, Mozambique (regional). 11The Policy entered into effect six months after the Board approval (in July 2006). 12IDB Board of Directors approved this new GEF program in May (see document GN-2304-1). 13Including the Integrated Ecosystem Management of the Sixaola River Basin approved in August 2006, which total 3,5 million from GEF funds and 13,4 million of counterpart funds. 35