AfCoP Sourcebook LIVE: Managing for Global Environmental Results at UNEP's-Division of Global Environment Facility (DGEF)

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Sheila Daunt Escandon on September 3, 2009 at 10:39am

Dear Rosa,

Can you share your insights as to how managers and staff balance the demands of fundraising for projects (which may include finding funding for their own salary) and monitoring for results? How do you recommend balancing these priorities?

Can you speak about how managers keep staff empowered, keep the funds flowing and deliver results in environments that are less than perfect for applying MfDR?

Thank you,
Sheila

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Ntiati on September 3, 2009 at 1:44pm

Hi Rosa!

When we talk about environment, climate change, the role GEF and results. It is the developed world that contibutes greatly to global warming and the small farmers in africa are only worried about their daily survival. How can GEF ensure that ' the polluters principal is enforced and the performance of all nations is measured on annual basis and ranked on the performance of least polluting environ and penalties enforced for those who pollutes most? can GEF play this role?

Thanks
Paul

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr. Rosa Muraguri-Mwololo on September 3, 2009 at 11:23pm

Dear Paul,
Thanks for your thoughtful question. Given that the question requires a more technical response, I have requested someone from GEF to give us an appropriate response. So kindly give me a few days and i wll come back to you.

Thanks

Rosa

Paul Ntiati said:

Hi Rosa!

When we talk about environment, climate change, the role GEF and results. It is the developed world that contibutes greatly to global warming and the small farmers in africa are only worried about their daily survival. How can GEF ensure that ' the polluters principal is enforced and the performance of all nations is measured on annual basis and ranked on the performance of least polluting environ and penalties enforced for those who pollutes most? can GEF play this role?

Thanks
Paul

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr. Rosa Muraguri-Mwololo on September 4, 2009 at 6:18am

Dear Paul,
This response is from a senior staff at the GEF secretariat in Washington DC. I cut and pasted your question and below is the response -word for word.

"The GEF is the financing mechanism for global conventions, and the financing comes entirely from developed countries who made a commitment to help developing countries pay for the "incremental cost" of safeguarding the global environment. For climate change, that simply means GEF financing helps developing countries to meet the additional costs of cutting emissions and protecting carbon stocks - these then benefit the entire world by helping to mitigate climate change. This is the "global environmental benefit" that GEF pays to deleiver. Hence GEF projects are never stand alone, but are rather implemented in the context of mainstream development priorities of recipient countries. For example, paying the costs of transferring technologies for fuel efficiency when a country is investing to improve its urban transport system.

The fact is that all countries must be accountable for there share of helping to build a sustainable future. If developed countries are doing their part by contributing resources such as through the GEF, developing countries must show commitment by demonstrating sustainable development pathways. This is the only we can achieve the kinds of collective responsibility needed to tackle the challenges of a globalized world.

Please do check out the GEF instrument on our website. http://www.gefweb.org/

I hope that helps-

Rosa.

Paul Ntiati said:

Hi Rosa!

When we talk about environment, climate change, the role GEF and results. It is the developed world that contibutes greatly to global warming and the small farmers in africa are only worried about their daily survival. How can GEF ensure that ' the polluters principal is enforced and the performance of all nations is measured on annual basis and ranked on the performance of least polluting environ and penalties enforced for those who pollutes most? can GEF play this role?

Thanks
Paul

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Goaba Mosienyane on September 4, 2009 at 11:13am

Dear Rosa
Thank you for the enlightening topic. Whilst the global environmental changes are experienced by all, to what extent do African countries appreciate their responsibility to participate in global environmental fora. What is being done to capacitate country policy makers, legislators and executive systems to be able to manage environmental issues? Do you think impacts such as climatic changes in the developing world are associated, with activities undertaken by some other countries? What is being done to help those who ought to, engage meaningfully, to present their perspective on the global environment and help increase pressure for responsible economic activities? Thank you once again for your multifaceted responses to date. Goaba

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr. Rosa Muraguri-Mwololo on September 7, 2009 at 9:06am

Dear Goaba,
Thanks very much for your deep question. While i try and look for some response from a GEF staff- let me first point out that a good protion of GEF funds goes to Enabling Activities in developing countries and some of this include helping government create an enabling environment (policies, capacity building and insitutions) for implementaion of global conventions. GEF has also developed tools and instruments to help governments and NGOs in Africa in the adaption to global climate changes. Many African government do not have strong governanace systems and as a result there is rampant environmental abuse. Forest cover is way below the recommended 10% even in my country Kenya -wetland have disappeared, water catchment areas have been abused etc. Until there is a water or power crisis- then and only then do most government realise that protecting the environment serves them and not regulating iinsitutions like UNEP or GEF.

I believe most countries know the link between activities in developing countries and the climate changes they are experiencing and are taking advantage of the on-going carbon trading, but others continue to be indifferent.
The level of awareness and seriousness in participating in global environmental issues vary from country to country based largely on their interests. Only by signing of global conventions and protocols are countries held accountable for gross malpractices.

There is a lot of support by GEF to assist polluting countries for instance, to use technologies that are more friendly. In developing countries like Kenya, there has been a move to phase out the leaded petrol and to switch to unleaded to reduce emiisions of ozone depleting and human poisoning gases. Today i dont think there is a single pump selling leaded petrol. In other countries we have urbarn transport improvement- use of trums, greeen technologies etc. I think it is the combination of small steps by each country that will lead to global environmental benefits. Ideally, the government should creates an enebling environment and should regulates policies for both the public and private sectors activities.

Please visit the GEF link to better understand its partnerships with governments, the civil society and the Private sector http://www.gefweb.org/


Goaba Mosienyane said:

Dear Rosa
Thank you for the enlightening topic. Whilst the global environmental changes are experienced by all, to what extent do African countries appreciate their responsibility to participate in global environmental fora. What is being done to capacitate country policy makers, legislators and executive systems to be able to manage environmental issues? Do you think impacts such as climatic changes in the developing world are associated, with activities undertaken by some other countries? What is being done to help those who ought to, engage meaningfully, to present their perspective on the global environment and help increase pressure for responsible economic activities? Thank you once again for your multifaceted responses to date. Goaba

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by copafrica on September 8, 2009 at 1:10pm

Please see below a message by Ms. Eva Benita A. Tuzon that was posted on another page of the website on September 4, 2009 at 9:43pm.

EXPANDING INVOLVEMENT WITH GEF

Dear Dr. Rosa:
Receive a salute from the Philippines for opening the window of knowledge how the issues of Climate Change and its accompanying development concerns are being addressed at the highest level. We cannot avoid linking the definition of governance made by UNDP, i.e., its domains, to the GEF. But let me dwell on the role of the state being an important leader-player on the matter. Many governments might have already been doing what they are supposed to do but they have yet to make it more apparent and participatory.

I deeply appreciate your response to Ms. Shiela D. Escandon as it encompassed everything about the enduring neglect of bringing results where they should happen due to all what you have excellently described. MfDR for one thing is still very much at the advocacy stage all across the different domains of governance. Not that they don't understand but simply would not take a radical change.

Kindly enlighten me how the agrarian-rural development sector, to specify, at the ministerial level would become a visible player even in few of the focal areas the GEF is pursuing. Apart from the few models, e.g., FAO is doing. The Department of Agrarian Reform has recently having its pilot project entitled Appreciative Resource-based knowledge System by which we have integrated several themes adapting the sustainable livelihood framework. However, DAR as a willing player lacks a good level of technical expertise how we could fully encourage the poor rural sector address the issues of climate change having understood from the report that agriculture pollutes the environment in many ways.It came to our senses that we in fact need technical partners to refine the tools and models we are trying to evolve at the grassroots level.

At this point, I observe that the best intentions are hindered simply because we lack sufficient information how to go about it, with the fear we are stepping on other agency's mandate... even if we all know that climate change requires multi-stakeholders. How could the GEF takes an expanded role of maybe influencing how we could innovate in terms of building dynamic institutional mechanisms breaking the usual rules of horses-galloping in different directions without creating synergies of efforts? Pardon me for the difficulties of making a seemingly common sense common.

Did the GEF ever work interface directly with the governments or the GEF mainly operates via the designate-donor agencies which you mentioned. Pardon again if I missed some of your points from your earlier discussion-replies. Best regards.

Eva Benita A. Tuzon

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr. Rosa Muraguri-Mwololo on September 8, 2009 at 4:22pm

Dear Sheila,
Yes good question- how do managers and staff balance the demands of fundraising for projects (which may include finding funding for their own salary) and monitoring for results?

Anybody who has worked in development knows very well how major fundraising is in the whole development business- and how competitive and time consuming it can actually get. Balancing fundraising and RBM application is sometimes an impossible task for staff. In some cases, more than 60 days in a year of staff time is spent on fundraising travel.

And well, when one’s survival in an organization is based on whether they can raise funds to cover their programs including their salary- RBM or results monitoring becomes secondary, and keeping jobs becomes primary. Management’s unspoken message to staff in this circumstance is; ‘fund raise or perish’. The emphasis clearly is not on results. And when results are not recognised or rewarded, and what is rewarded is what is done- which is fundraising. In times of downsizing or restructuring- for instance have seen organizations keeping poorly performing staff who bring money, while letting real performers go.

But management experts warn that no matter how well designed processes like RBM are, they are not going to work and be sustained if the culture (how things are done) does not change in support to the new system. So, the question is- what are progressive organizations doing to empower staff to create results while keeping the coffers full?

One approach I have seen work with some organizations- is creating corporate budgeted master plans or strategic plans that take into consideration program plans priorities and budgets, and use it to fundraise on behalf of all programs. Core organizational budgets are also used to support some of the programs.This releases the staffs time spent on fundraising and with funds for their programs and salaries provided, they become empowered and are made accountable for results. Fundraising using one master plan seems to work better and attracts more funding than when individuals are left to court potential donors on their own.

Management experts again tell us that the key drivers of RBM application will always be leadership and culture. The depth of RBM application will be the extent leadership at in any organization is willing to go into the organizational culture (practices and values) to solve contradictions to managing for results.

I am sure there must be other approaches that organizations are using to balance fundraising and results- and I wait to hear from others

I

Sheila Daunt Escandon said:

Dear Rosa,

Can you share your insights as to how managers and staff balance the demands of fundraising for projects (which may include finding funding for their own salary) and monitoring for results? How do you recommend balancing these priorities?

Can you speak about how managers keep staff empowered, keep the funds flowing and deliver results in environments that are less than perfect for applying MfDR?

Thank you,
Sheila

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr. Rosa Muraguri-Mwololo on September 30, 2009 at 12:16am

Dear Eva,
Thanks for your question and sorry it has taken for ever to give you a reply. I expected to have an expert from UNEP-GEF to give us an expert answer, but that has not been forthcoming. By the way, I was an RBM consultant for GEF and not a scientific expert, so I can only answer the non- technical part of your question where i have am confident to have some correct information.. You asked whether GEF works with governments? The answer is yes- GEF works in developing countries and countries with economies in transition in the following regions: Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia and the Pacific, Europe and the Commonwealth Independent States (CIS). It works with all government that are signatory to the international conventions, such as, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, the Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), and the Montreal Protocol on the Ozone Layer.

GEF supports governments to domesticate the international conventions that they are signatory to and to get in place the infrastructure or enabling that will support these conventions. National bodies and governmenet are set up to regulate and safe guard the environment.

Please go to theGEF webpage www.gef.org and read more and also find out what conventions Phillipines is signatory to.

I hope that somehow help a little.

Rosa
copafrica said:

Please see below a message by Ms. Eva Benita A. Tuzon that was posted on another page of the website on September 4, 2009 at 9:43pm.

EXPANDING INVOLVEMENT WITH GEF

Dear Dr. Rosa:
Receive a salute from the Philippines for opening the window of knowledge how the issues of Climate Change and its accompanying development concerns are being addressed at the highest level. We cannot avoid linking the definition of governance made by UNDP, i.e., its domains, to the GEF. But let me dwell on the role of the state being an important leader-player on the matter. Many governments might have already been doing what they are supposed to do but they have yet to make it more apparent and participatory.

I deeply appreciate your response to Ms. Shiela D. Escandon as it encompassed everything about the enduring neglect of bringing results where they should happen due to all what you have excellently described. MfDR for one thing is still very much at the advocacy stage all across the different domains of governance. Not that they don't understand but simply would not take a radical change.

Kindly enlighten me how the agrarian-rural development sector, to specify, at the ministerial level would become a visible player even in few of the focal areas the GEF is pursuing. Apart from the few models, e.g., FAO is doing. The Department of Agrarian Reform has recently having its pilot project entitled Appreciative Resource-based knowledge System by which we have integrated several themes adapting the sustainable livelihood framework. However, DAR as a willing player lacks a good level of technical expertise how we could fully encourage the poor rural sector address the issues of climate change having understood from the report that agriculture pollutes the environment in many ways.It came to our senses that we in fact need technical partners to refine the tools and models we are trying to evolve at the grassroots level.

At this point, I observe that the best intentions are hindered simply because we lack sufficient information how to go about it, with the fear we are stepping on other agency's mandate... even if we all know that climate change requires multi-stakeholders. How could the GEF takes an expanded role of maybe influencing how we could innovate in terms of building dynamic institutional mechanisms breaking the usual rules of horses-galloping in different directions without creating synergies of efforts? Pardon me for the difficulties of making a seemingly common sense common.

Did the GEF ever work interface directly with the governments or the GEF mainly operates via the designate-donor agencies which you mentioned. Pardon again if I missed some of your points from your earlier discussion-replies. Best regards.

Eva Benita A. Tuzon

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bimerew Alemu on November 5, 2009 at 6:57am

Dear friends

Discussion on climate change immediately before the UN World Summit on Climate Change to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009 is very timely. As one investigates dialogues on environmental problems it is paradoxical to judge who the CULPRITS are.Some argue that it is not just the emission of greenhouse gases that creat great problems towards global environmental results. Others argue the other way. The point is who takes the lions share; the industrialized countries or developing countries? Realistic analysis that are based on studies is important. But the concern should be to realize crucial handicaps from soil erosion and deforestation to emission of gases and show effort to find out solutions to the existing problem across the globe.
Who could be the CULPRIT then? May the International Summit in Denmark in a months time give sustainable response?

Best regards

Bimerew Alemu

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr. Rosa Muraguri-Mwololo on November 26, 2009 at 9:21am

Dear Colleagues,
They say even good things do finally come to an end- and sadly, it is time for me to say good bye to discussions relating to this Live case study. For me, i must admit it has been months of growth and stimulation – and I do sincerely hope that I similarly was able bring you new insights and learning in the application of RBM- despite the unique situational conditions and contexts of the GEF lessons.

As a parting shot, I would like to consolingly caution all that there are no perfect RBM systems. Performance improvement will always be continuous work with no end -especially in the highly complex, unpredictable and dynamic development contexts that we do our work. As development change agents, we must be able to continuously adapt as the environment evolves, keenly watching the fidelity of key assumptions, monitoring and managing risks, while still keeping a steady eye on the planned OUTCOMES. Unfortunately, there is yet no “auto-piloting” when managing for results; everything is ‘manual on the dashboard’ and attention to details in critical. But the good news is that the benefits of RBM’s adaptive management are often evident. The more attention one pays to dynamics of complex environments, the more one learns, and the more informed ones choices, actions and decisions- and the more the likelihood of achieving planned results. An organization that doesn’t learn (from evidence-based M&E systems) will often make choices and decisions that are poor, misinformed, and unintelligent – will often repeat past mistakes-hence throwing good money after bad money.

That said- and as my closing remark-may I take this opportunity to thank you for your invaluable time, and to remind you that may we always measure RESULTS by the extent projects and programs have reduced human suffering, restored dignity, and improved the quality of life for the targeted communities.

All the best and God Bless You all-


Bimerew Alemu said:

Dear friends

Discussion on climate change immediately before the UN World Summit on Climate Change to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009 is very timely. As one investigates dialogues on environmental problems it is paradoxical to judge who the CULPRITS are.Some argue that it is not just the emission of greenhouse gases that creat great problems towards global environmental results. Others argue the other way. The point is who takes the lions share; the industrialized countries or developing countries? Realistic analysis that are based on studies is important. But the concern should be to realize crucial handicaps from soil erosion and deforestation to emission of gases and show effort to find out solutions to the existing problem across the globe.
Who could be the CULPRIT then? May the International Summit in Denmark in a months time give sustainable response?

Best regards

Bimerew Alemu

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page