1. National workshop on nine new POPs and implementation of the Stockholm Convention in China Beijing China, 1-2 July 2010 1

2. Structure of this Presentation Background to the GEF Project approval process Overview of programs related to POPs POPs projects in China Chemicals management & GEF-5 2

3. 3

4. About the GEF World’s largest funder of projects in developing countries to protect the global environment while supporting sustainable development; Established in 1991 before Rio as a network organization; 184 member countries; To date: 10 GEF Agencies: UNDP, UNEP, World Bank, FAO, UNIDO, International Fund for Agriculture Development ( IFAD), African Development Bank (AfDB), Asian Development Bank (ADB) European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Inter-American Development Bank. 4

5. About the GEF (cont’d) Secretariat; Independent Evaluation Office; Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP); Assembly (Every 4 years) : overall policies and evaluation; Council (Twice per year): 32 members (18 representing recipient countries, 14 representing donor countries): responsible for approving operational policies and programs; Financial mechanism for Conventions on Biodiversity, Climate Change, Desertification, and Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs ). 5

6. Governance Framework STAP GEF Assembly Countries: Political FPs GEF Assembly Countries: Political FPs GEF Secretariat GEF Agencies UNDP UNEP World Bank ADB AFDB EBRD IDB FAO IFAD UNIDO Projects Countries: Operational FPs, Convention FPs, other gov’t agencies, civil society Projects Countries: Operational FPs, Convention FPs, other gov’t agencies, civil society Evaluation Office Conventions Countries: Convention FPs Conventions Countries: Convention FPs GEF Council Countries: Council Members/ Constituencies GEF Council Countries: Council Members/ Constituencies Strategic Guidance OperationsAction 6

7. Financial History of the GEF GEF Pilot Phase 1991-1994 -- $1 Billion US Dollars Replenishments 1995-1998 – $2.2 Billion US Dollars 1999-2001 – $2.8 Billion US Dollars 2002-2005 – $2.9 Billion US Dollars 2006-2010 – $3.1 Billion US Dollars 2010-2014 : $ 4.3 billion World Bank is the Trustee of the GEF Trust Fund 7

8. Major reforms for GEF-5 STAR: System for a transparent allocation of resources A system for allocating resources to countries in a transparent and consistent manner based on global environmental priorities and country capacity, policies and practices relevant to successful implementation of GEF projects. GEF-4: Biodiversity and Climate Change GEF-5 : Biodiversity, Climate Change and Land degradation ○ POPs and International waters: out of STAR (not enough indicators for the time being) 8

9. Major reforms for GEF-5 (con’t) Broadening the GEF partnership Activities expected to expand in different GEF focal areas and cross- cutting themes such as – enlarged scope in chemicals, in CC (efforts to adopt low carbon development strategies and sustainable forest management – the GEF could benefit from the addition of new partners as Executing Entities under the policy of Expanded Responsibilities: 4 UNA Candidates: ○ United Nations Education, Scientific, and Culture Organization (UNESCO) ○ UN Habitat ○ The World Food Program (WPF) ○ World Health Organization (WHO) ○ Under discussion If approved as new GEF Executing Entities, GEFSEC will assess each agency’s fiduciary standards, as has been done for the ten GEF Agencies. 9

10. Major reforms for GEF-5 (con’t) Under discussion Direct access for Bilateral Agencies and National Entities, NGOS, academic institutions, etc… Through an accreditation evaluation process GEF will establish an accreditation panel comprised of qualified experts from appropriate disciplines to evaluate accreditation applications from the above candidates. 10

11. Major reforms for GEF-5 (con’t) Streamlining the project cycle and refining the programmatic approach Full size projects : The current two-step Council approval process for full-sized projects modified to one-step Council approval process (through abolishing the requirement to circulate final project documents prior to CEO endorsement)18 months instead of 22 months Medium size projects ○ No more PIF for MSP unless PPGs are required ○ Approval for MSP delegated to CEO without prior circulation to Council 11

12. Major reforms for GEF-5 (con’t) Programmatic approach Proposed New Approach for Qualifying Agencies ○ Council approves program and the full program amount requested as part of the PFD. ○ GEF Agency to focus on the preparation and approval of individual projects under the program following a streamlined approach with endorsement/approval authority delegated to the CEO. 12

13. Major reforms for GEF-5 (con’t) Approval of Individual Projects under the Program Project concept for the individual projects approved by the qualifying Agency following its own individual procedures. Projects are fully prepared, the project documents for FSP & MSP submitted to GEFSEC for a 10 working-day review period for CEO endorsement/approval. After CEO endorsement qualifying Agency will approve the project following its own internal procedures, and the project will begin implementation. - Approved project documents posted on the GEF website for information; - All projects must start implementation no later than 22 months after the approval of the Program Framework Document 13

14. Major reforms for GEF-5 (con’t) Two new GEF initiatives (adopted by GEF council) National Portfolio Formulation Exercises (NPFEs): Recipient countries, to undertake, on a voluntary basis, NPFEs that could serve as a basis for seeking GEF support – Grant of $ 30,000. Direct access for Convention Reports that are undertaken as obligations of the countries to the conventions (e.g..: NIP or NIP update preparation) with grant amounts up to $ 500,000. ○ However countries can alternatively opt to use the existing procedures for accessing GEF resources through a GEF Agency. 14

15. 15

16. GEF-4 Reforms: Simplified Project Approval Process Main Features: Consolidation of steps in project cycle Reduction of the project cycle from 66 months to 22 months (FSP) and 12 months (MSP) Reduction in documentation requirements 16

17. Review Criteria for Project Concepts Criteria for PIF Review: Country eligibility Consistency with GEF strategic objectives/programs Comparative advantage of GEF agency submitting PIF Estimated cost of the project, including expected co-financing Milestones for further project processing 17

18. Review Criteria for Complete Project Proposals Criteria for CEO Endorsement of Projects: Project’s ability to deliver its outcomes, and generate global environmental benefits consistent with focal area strategies Cost-effectiveness in using GEF funds (review of project budget, cost tables for project components, project management, consultants, and co-financing) Compliance with GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Policy Project preparation grant status report 18

19. Comparative Advantage of GEF Agencies GEF agencies are requested to focus their involvement in GEF project activities within their respective comparative advantages Secretariat, in agreement with country, assesses comparative advantage of GEF agency proposed to manage a project during the PIF review. Partnerships encouraged for integrated projects with components where the expertise and experience of a GEF agency is lacking or weak. Criteria and description of comparative advantages to be regularly reviewed by Council 19

20. Countries Driving GEF Programmes Countries are advised to:  Identify national priorities for GEF funding  Develop comprehensive and coherent GEF strategy in consultation with key stakeholders  Integrate GEF priorities within broader national environment and sustainable development frameworks (NPFEs) 20

21. 21

22. POPs: Programming 2001-2006 (GEF-3)  $218m (co- financing $153m) GEF-4 allocation $267m At the end of GEF-4, cumulative allocation since adoption of the SC of $450m; leveraging $650m co-financing 22

23. POPs Key Issues Issues identified under the NIPs Obsolete pesticides; PCB management Dioxins/Furans Management of healthcare wastes Development of alternatives to DDT for vector control. Limited ability to deal with POPs in developing countries due to lack of basic chemicals management capacities 135 countries prepared a National Implementation Plan (NIP), assessing and prioritizing POPs issues – now ready for NIP implementation GEF-4: shift towards NIP implementation 23

24. POPs projects in China In China, GEF’s intervention in the POPs focal area is characterized by a large number of activities covering all POPs issues identified under the Stockholm Convention. These include: Investment projects addressing PCBs and PCB containing wastes, pesticides containing waste; Development of alternatives to DDT for vector control and alternatives to DDT for the production on anti-fouling paint; 24

25. POPs projects in China Management of medical wastes; Minimization of dioxins and furans in sleeted industrial sectors (i.e. pulp and paper); Capacity building projects for ensuring a sustained implementation of the Stockholm Convention. Total GEF contribution in China: $ 83 million, representing 19.6 % of total GEF allocation for POPs - Co-financing: $ 132 million 25

26. GEF-5 programming Negotiations for the fifth replenishment came to a successful conclusion on May 12, 2010. Thirty-five donors have generously pledged $4.3 billion for programming in the next four years. This represents a 52.5% increase in new resources available to the GEF. 26

27. Chemicals management $420 million allocated to chemicals. The distribution of resources is as follows: POPs: $375 million; Ozone: $25 million; Sound chemicals management and mercury reduction: $20 million. 27

28. Chemicals programming for GEF-5 Brings together POPs, ODS and Sound chemical management for increased coherence Goal: To promote the sound management of chemicals throughout their life-cycle in ways that lead to the minimization of significant adverse effects on human health and the global environment Expected Impact: Reduction in the exposure to Persistent Organic Pollutants and other Persistent Toxic Substances of humans and wildlife 28

29. POPs Outlook for GEF-5 Increased attention to potential for synergies with other focal areas, in particular with climate mitigation and releases of un-intentionally produced POPs (dioxins). Proposal to address chemicals in a more comprehensive manner, whilst keeping focus on mandate as financial mechanism to the Stockholm Convention. 29

30. POPs Outlook for GEF-5 Core objectives Reduce POPs use / production / releases; including that of “new POPs”; Outcomes: ○ Capacity build for implementation and National Implementation Plans updated; ○ Reduction of production and use of POPs; ○ Reduction of releases – with emphasis on linkages with climate mitigation; ○ POPs waste disposed of. 30

31. Additional GEF-5 Programs Demonstration of mercury reduction in priority sectors; Pilot implementation of SAICM priorities to generate global environmental benefits; 31

32. Summary GEF-4&5 reforms for a more effective GEF – in particular simplification of project cycle; POPs program marked by shift from preparation to implementation on the ground; GEF committed $450 million for POPs projects since adoption of Stockholm Convention; GEF-5 –(30% increase) Consolidation of the POPs portfolio- Chemicals management addressed in a more comprehensive manner; Enhance work on new POPs and support to the development of the Hg Convention 32

33. Thank You!! Contact Information Robert Dixon rdixon1@the GEF.org Laurent Granier lgranier@theGEF.org Ibrahima Sow isow@theGEF.org 33