41-council-day2-HP_5.jpg
41-council-chair.jpg
November 9, 2011
The 41st meeting of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) Council continued its work on Wednesday. In the morning, the Council discussed the GEF Minimum Fiduciary Standards: Separation of Implementation and Execution functions in GEF Partner Agencies and asked clarifications about legal responsibility in the case of direct access to GEF funds; practical arrangements within the GEF agencies to implement the separation of functions; and the terminology, as “implementation” and “execution” have very similar meaning. Later in the morning they reviewed the Work Program, recognizing the importance of: mainstreaming climate adaptation in project design; co-financing of projects through private business participation; small-grants programmes; transparency; and greater non-governmental organizations' (NGOs) participation.
In the afternoon the Council discussed Criteria for the Establishment of Trust Funds within the GEF, with some members expressing support for the standing fund with multiple windows under strict criteria, and several others questioning the establishment of such a fund. They also discussed and welcomed the adoption of a new Policy on Agency Minimum Standards on Environmental and Social Safeguards, with many members recognizing that the Policy should be a “living document” that will have to change and adapt over time. Many members welcomed the opportunity to mainstream safeguards into GEF projects as more agencies are involved. An NGO representative welcomed the Policy but lamented that minimum standards such as Involuntary Resettlement might be inapplicable under some circumstances.
The day ended with a discussion on GEF Administrative Expenses. The report, introduced in the morning, provoked an intense and lengthy discussion with 24 Council Members intervening and three Implementing Agencies (IAs) making statements. All Members supported the need for efficiency, with some emphasizing maintaining the value of the services provided by the IAs while striving for cost reduction. Several Members noted that the 60% increase in the new replenishment would justify a cut in the corporate activities fees. The Council requested the Secretariat to establish a working group comprised of Council Members, the GEF Secretariat and GEF agencies, to review the fee structure with a view to decreasing the total costs and presenting a proposal for a new fee policy at the June 2012 Council meeting.
Reported by IISD RS: http://www.iisd.ca/ymb/gef/council41/9nov.html