GEF Fizzles: No Agreement

While NGOs and a team of independent evaluators pushed for serious reforms in the way the Global Environment Facility (GEF) is to design, fund and implement projects for the global environment, government delegations spent last week in Cartagena struggling over power politics. The meeting, convened to finalise the restructuring and replenishment of the GEF, which is to operate the financial mechanisms for the climate change and biodiversity conventions and provide funding for protection of the ozone layer and international waters, ended without agreement and without the commitment of financial resources.

The first two days of a week long session involved presentations from NGOs and from a team of experts commissioned by governments to conduct an independent evaluation of GEF activities during its three year Pilot Phase. These presentations made specific recommendations for institutional reform aimed at improving the process of project preparation by strengthening the role and independence of the GEF's Council and Secretariat from the GEF's three Implementing Agencies, UNDP, UNEP and the World Bank. NGOs, drawing from the report of the evaluation team, also recommended that GEF projects be subject to a permanent and independent evaluation process, and that project preparation, implementation and monitoring should be opened to greater participation of NGOs and local affected communities.

As the week continued and the doors closed to NGO scrutiny, governments focused not on reform of the GEF project cycle, but on the distribution of power between North and South within the GEF's governing Council. Two issues emerged as among the most contentious:

1) what is the appropriate ratio of seats between industrialised countries (ICs), Eastern European economies in transition (ETs) and the developing countries (DCs) within the Council;

2) whether the Council would be chaired by an individual elected from amongst its members or by the Chief

Executive Officer (CEO) of the Secretariat, as nominated by the Implementing Agencies.

The OECD hoped to stick to its offer of 30 seats with a ratio of 14 ICs + 2 ETs + 14 DCs, with the CEO serving as chair of the Council. The Group of 77 (G-77) representing developing countries and China, insisted on holding a majority within the Council that better reflected its constituency of over 130 countries, and on the right to elect its own Chair.

The two sides formed contact groups to attempt to narrow the gap. On Friday in early morning, the OECD returned with two offers,

1) a ratio of 14 ICs + 2 ETs + 15 DCs, with the Chair shared between the CEO and an elected co-chair or

2) a ratio of 14 ICs + 2 ETs + 17 DCs, chaired by the CEO.

Agreement looked close, as the G-77 spent much of Friday morning in closed session, considering variations on these two options in preparation for a plenary session at 2:00pm.

Within hours of the OECD offer, while the G-77 met, France withdrew its support for the compromise, and was followed quickly by a German withdrawal. For reasons as yet unclear, France signalled that it would insist on returning to the original 14+2+14 ratio or downgrade its financial support for the GEF accordingly. Amidst accusations of bad faith, and of failing to live up to the promises of new levels of power sharing and cooperation made at Rio, the negotiations collapsed.

Efforts will be made to get negotiations back on track in time for the next meeting of the Climate Change and Biodiversity negotiators early next year.

Back...