[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