an inter press service feature

amsterdam, dec 3 1993 (ips) - the world bank controlled global environment facility (gef) should stop funding any new projects until it radically redesigns itself, says an independent evaluation team appointed by the bank itself.

next week government representatives from some 60 nations will meet in cartagena, colombia, to finalise operating procedures for the gef, set up three years ago by the bank, the u.n. development programme (undp) and u.n. environment programme (unep).

during this first three years, also called the ''pilot phase,''the gef has planned and committed 1.1 billion dollars in grants for 100 projects.

these projects were supposed to lead the way for environmental change in international development planning as well as pay for ''incremental'' global benefits. that is to say they were supposed to pay for the environment above and beyond the national benefits for the country in which the project was sited.

for example, the gef has paid for india to try and develop alternative energy supplies that will reduce demand for polluting and global warming coal burning power plants.

another project it plans to pay for is to save forests plant and animal species in laos.

in order to assess whether or not the gef was fulfilling this function, this spring the three agencies that run the gef appointed evaluation teams within their agencies, as well as an independent team of outside evaluators for to look at all three. they were asked to report back to governments at the colombia meeting.

this team was criticised by activist groups who monitor the gef as not being sufficiently independent because they were appointed by the bank itself.

they were also worried that the evaluation would fulfill to look at the bigger projects paid for by the very same agencies that were negating the effect of the gef projects. for example the bank is paying for india's new coal fired power projects as well as for cutting down laotian forests.

but despite this alleged bias, the evaluation team, led by haven north, an evaluator who has previously examined u.s. aid policy, has come up with very similar results as the activists.

''no further allocation of funds to new projects should be made'' until proper strategies are developed, say the evaluators in the report that they will present last week.

one of the major problems, according to the evaluators, is the fact that the gef does not have proper strategies for solving global environmental problems. this is despite "voluminous" amounts of information that they have produced on the matter.

for example the evaluators say that the gef's commitment to paying for ''incremental'' global benefits has resulted in its ignoring local and regional issues and failing to develop local or regional strategies.

then the report says that the gef was supposed to pay for new and innovative ways of protecting the environment but that the gef staff have not reported the lessons that they have learnt and as a consequence ''valuable experience from the implementation of projects may be lost.''

what is more the report says that the gef's work has been marked by ''unproductive competition and antagonisms and independent rather than cooperative endeavours'' between the three implementing agencies.

they also agree with the activists that the gef needs to look at the bigger picture of other bank loans.

another vindication for activists is that the evaluators agree that despite a commitment to meet and talk to activists about problems with specific gef projects like the one in laos, there has been ''consistent exaggeration'' about their contacts with the activists.

activists have highlighted other examples of this. for example recently the uk based magazine, the ecologist, investigated a gef project to save wetlands in uruguay.

the ecologist says that despite the claim by gef staff that they recognise the importance of local participation in their projects, local and national ngos were not informed about this project before its approval in early 1993, and have not been formally consulted about the project since.

nicholas hildyard and patrick mccully, the editors of the ecologist, say that in reply to a letter raising this issue, the head of the montevideo office of undp, paul van hanswijck de jonge, falsely told the environmental activists from the environment defense fund (edf) in washington dc, that several uruguayan ngos had been consulted.

the letter also claimed that the uruguayan environmental ngos network had selected a local contact group for the project -- a claim which the network firmly denies.

edf economist korinna horta, who has been tracking the gef since its inception, says that the evaluation team report bears out their concerns. ''basically they say that nothing works.

the gef is based on this mythical principle of incremental costs which has had perverse effects on the type of projects they have chosen,'' she said.

this news has already hurt plans for new money for the gef. when gef officials originally asked for new money in may, they asked for between 2.8 billion and 4.2 billion dollars but governments baulked, partly for economic reasons. but some, like the united states, have faulted the way the gef is run.

the gef has now scaled this figure back and is only expecting to get two billion dollars. it has commitments from a few, such as germany, which has pledged 450 million dollars.

participating governments together agreed that as a matter of policy other countries like the united states should ''share the burden'' by contributing a sum proportional to their wealth.

even though the u.s. has agreed to this is principle, aid activists say that they are skittish and might not come through.

the u.s. only agreed to pay 30 million dollars to the core 1.1 billion dollars pledged to the original three year pilot phase of the gef. they still have not paid up, claiming that the gef has not measured up to their standards of information disclosure, among other things.

whether or not governments will take all this into account in their final meetings is uncertain precisely because of the above reason of ''antagonisms'' between the agencies.

in a confidential memo from undp, as seen by ips, the implementing agency claims that the governments are been ''bluffed'' by their partner agency, the bank, which has administrative control over the gef, to allow it to continue to control the gef and not make any changes.

on the other hand if the governments take the advice in the report they will take this power away from the bank.

Back...