[sustran] GEF Strategy
Brian.Williams at unchs.org
Brian.Williams at unchs.org
Fri Nov 21 18:31:41 JST 1997
Dear Chris,
Thank you for your comments. I agree entirely with your
reading that the Bank has distanced themselves from GEF
policy-formulation. And I think that is precisely the
problem.
We seem to have situation where policy-formulation has
been delegated to a few key private sector consultants. This
raises two strategic points of intervention for us:
1) criticism of the results; 2) criticism that
policy-formulation was delegated to begin with.
Might I add that UNEP and UNDP are the other
implementing/consultative partners in GEF policy-formulation.
The UNEP GEF secretariat is down the hall from me here in
Nairobi and invited me to attend the STAP meeting...I will
make inquiries. Can someone work on UNDP? They were
conspicuously absent during consultations.
Might I also add for those who are not familiar with
GEF that when it was re-configured and replenished in 1995,
it was clear that UNEP was to provide technical inputs, the
World Bank funding and UNDP execution. That is essentially
the rough outline of the "partnership" arrangement of the
Global Environment Facility as agreed by member states of the
United Nations. Approval of projects must come from
national governments, a constant source of consternation from
all involved in this effort. I bring up this latter issue
only as a potential strategic point for intervention. The
GEF is demand-driven from national governments. If they
don't like the plate of goodies offered them, it is up to
them to object. This may be (while incredibly difficult and
time-consuming) an additional strategy for us to collectively
undertake for all concerned that a seriously misguided
approach has been assumed in transport/climate change under
GEF. If at all possible, please contact your national-level
Ministers of Environment regarding the issue. They may be
interested and willing to help.
Many of us worked like hell to get transport into the
Climate change/GEF equation at all. As it is now on the
agenda (of which we should be proud) let's not let it be
presented wrongly. This is a unique opportunity to set the
record straight and communicate to national governments what
the real issues in transport are. Funding "incremental
costs" of transport/climate change mitigation measures is , I
believe, a useful mechanism to adopt if done properly. But
in operationalizing the concept with respect to transport,
the GEF has assumed a decidedly technological quick fix only
because it is simply easier to quantify effects from
improvements in technology. Strategies need to be developed
to quantify air-quality impacts of demand-management measures
and even non-transport solutions. These impacts have been
measured elsewhere but the results have simply not been
adequately communicated to GEF and national governments.
any additional ideas/inputs?
Brian Williams, Human Settlements Officer
United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (HABITAT)
Research and Development Division
P.O. Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya
TEL: (254 2) 623-916
FAX: (254 2) 624-265
EMAIL: brian.williams at unchs.org
More information about the Sustran-discuss
mailing list