NEGOTIATIONS
FOCUS
PROCESS
KEY STEPS
|
|
Best practice and lesson 8: The simplified LDCF project cycle provides expedited access to
resources
|
|
|
The LDCF was established by the COP in 2001 to support the implementation of the LDC work
programme. Based on the guidance of decision 3/CP.11, the LDCF has developed several special
concepts, designed to simplify project preparation and provide expedited access to LDCF
resources. The project cycle for the LDCF is therefore much simpler than for regular GEF
projects, since projects under the LDCF are processed upon receipt, reducing delays. The
process is being further streamlined to include only one approval from the GEF LDCF
Council.
Under the LDCF, each LDC can access a share of the total resources, and this share will grow
proportionally with the size of the fund. As of 31 March 2011, donors had pledged USD 324
million to the LDCF.
Many Parties felt that the evolution over time of the GEF guidelines for accessing the LDCF and
the need for LDCs to adjust to those changes led to excessive delays in the implementation of
NAPA projects, as exemplified by the introduction of the new procedures to access LDCF
funding.
When NAPAs were initiated, the project cycle was based on a defined set of templates: these
templates were subsequently changed for new ones. However, the Annotated Guidelines for
the Preparation of National Adaptation Programmes of Action provided guidance on developing
project profiles based on information requirements from the initial templates and LDCs that
were in the implementation phase during these changes had their projects cancelled and had to
resubmit their project proposals using the new formats, which caused a considerable delay in
project approval.
The GEF agencies support countries with their adaptation activities using funding from
different GEF-managed funds, as well as funding from other sources. To facilitate their own
internal working procedures, the agencies have developed templates and a list of core
components of the adaptation projects they support. While the NAPA only focuses on urgent and
immediate adaptation needs and the LDCF has expedited procedures, the practical steps used by
agencies frequently do not take this into account, and all projects are developed using the
agencies’ standard procedures regardless of the source of funding. This results in
lengthy project development phases and, on occasions, a repetition of the steps already carried
out during the NAPA preparation stage, such as stakeholder consultations.
|
|
Best practice: The simplified project cycle for LDCF projects has made it
easier for LDCs to access funds under the GEF. Many concepts, such as co-financing adaptation
projects, have been refined and simplified through the LDCF, leading to much simpler project
formulations compared to regular projects under the GEF Trust Fund that have to show global
benefits through incremental cost reasoning.
The principle of ‘balanced access’ used by the LDCF is also a good practice, as it
avoids the risks of a ‘first come, first served’ policy that would deplete all
resources among a limited number of LDCs, namely those with higher institutional capacity for
project development.
|
|
Lesson learned: Changing procedures is necessary to accommodate changes and
the enhancement of processes; however, due consideration should be given to transitional
arrangements so as to avoid unnecessary and/or excessive delays. The main recommendation drawn
from experiences with the switch from PDFs to PIF/PPGs is that, in future, no delays should be
imposed on projects in the pipeline to the point of re-submission and re-approval if at all
possible. Measures should be put in place to facilitate a smooth transition. Many LDCs felt
that, given the fact that each LDC is assured a certain amount of funding from the LDCF, the
process of accessing the funds could be made a lot easier, with a focus on designing
implementation, rather than justifying the choice of a project. Transparency in agency
procedures during the design and implementation of projects can help avoid conflicting
expectations of countries.
|
+ Next best practice and lesson
++ Back to best practices and lessons learned main page
|
|
|
| |
|
