AF NGO Network Talking Points for the 21st meeting Alpha Oumar Kaloga Policy Officer on Climate Change & Development

Talking Points for the 21st meeting of the AF Environmental and Social Policy (ESP) Need of an overall policy framework on ESP that is integrated in the AF policies and Guidance The ESP should be proportionate with the gravity of potential risks that may occur ESP should combine the core project objectives with environmental values and needs of particular groups ESP applied for the project fits into the country national strategic plan The operational principles guiding the ESP outlines in the document are a good starting point. However the AF should strive to : Integrate and integrate in the accreditation process The Project Perfomance Report Inclusiveness and promote benefits Catagorisation of the risks and set minimum standards

Talking Points for the 21st meeting of the AF Report of the AF to the CMP : Request the CMP to give a specific guidance to monetize ERUs and AAU of the first transfert Need of having more indepth discussion on the strategic direction of the Fund Overall Evaluation of the Fund (I) Transparency as a benchmark. This means that the overall evaluation should be undertaken in the way to promote transparency as to avoid any conflict of interests GEF having the Evaluation function does not mean it should undertake all evaluation actvities related to the AF Some Suggestions: Request the GEF Evaluation Office to elaborate the ToR for the Evaluation Based on cost effectiveness, to hire a consultant firm through a transparent competitive process to undertake the evaluation of the AF Stick to the timeline to submit the finding of the evaluation, in order to be fed into the second review process of the AF

Talking Points for the 21st meeting of the AF Overall Evaluation of the Fund (II) Scrutinise, stock take and provide useful information how to fine tune the AF Need to differentiate between Fund level and Project level At the Fund level it is important to build up on of the findings of the previous review of the institutional arrangement of the AF as well as the upcoming second review Not duplicate the effort and keep in mind the second review of the AF At the project level, the finding of the mid term evaluations of project could be a good basis, but in the absence of sufficient, the Project Performance Report Information disclosure policy The AFB is definitely at the forefront of transparency There is a need to disclose information on the accreditation process International relation: they should be some flexibilities with respect to information related to accreditation to prevent other proponents to make the same mistake Need to set up an independent redress mechanism

Talking Points for the 21st meeting of the AF Results Tracking Differentaite between qualitative and quantitive indicators The three areas identified by the Secretariat are good starting point a) Reduction in vulnerability, increased adaptive capacity of the communities The indicators should also include an approach that takes into account different vulnerable groups. b) Increased ecosystem resilience: Indicators of services provided by the ecosystem c) climate resilience strategies into local and national plans Indicators on existing (local/regional/national) government policies In order to ensure the result disbursement that truly works, a mechanism needs to be set that randomly checks information provided in the PPR. This should frighten the IE to provided are accurate, as they can any time being controlled

Thank you www. AF-Network.org