M van Schalkwyk: South African statement at the Global Environment
Facility

29 August 2006

Global Context

The third Global Environment Facility (GEF) Assembly comes at a critical
time:
* a year after the UN General Assembly reviewed global progress in achieving
the Millennium Development Goals
* a year after the launch of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment raised
awareness of goods and services provided by ecosystems and their present state
of degradation
* midway between the 14th and 15th sessions of the Commission on Sustainable
Development reviews progress with the targets set at the World Summit on
Sustainable Development, under the themes of climate change, air quality,
energy and industrial development
* six months after Ministers adopted the Strategic Approach to International
Chemicals Management, to give effect to WSSD targets on chemicals
* six months after COP 8 of the Convention on Biological Diversity called for
an in depth review of the availability of financial resources at its ninth
meeting in 2008
* one year after COP 7 of the Convention to Combat Desertification called upon
GEF to provide support to developing country Parties for the implementation of
their National Action Programmes
* less than three months before COP 12 of the Framework Convention on Climate
Change meets in Nairobi.

All these events have two things in common. Firstly, there is a constant
message on the need to move from development of strategies to implementation.
Secondly, there is a consistent call for increased financial resources for the
implementation of multilateral environmental agreements and their action
plans.

However the response to this call has, with few exceptions, been
disappointing. The financial resources for implementing multilateral
environmental agreements appear to be shrinking.

African context

Africa in particular is facing critical environmental challenges.

The projected effects of climate change on this continent are overwhelmingly
negative, with significant expected impacts on human livelihoods, health, water
resources, land and marine biodiversity, agricultural production and food
security, as well as nature-based tourism. To adequately respond to the adverse
impacts of global climate change, African countries will need to dedicate
resources to adaptation programmes and will need substantial financial and
technical support for this work. We must recognise that while adaptation to the
adverse environmental impacts of climate change are local, its causes are
global and, therefore, clearly within the GEF mandate.

Land degradation is reaching alarming levels. Two-thirds of arable land in
Africa is expected to be lost by 2025. Desertification and deforestation have
triggered ecosystem destruction and large-scale population movements, are
undermining economic development, and could further contribute to or aggravate
regional conflicts and instability. Lack of adequate, timely and predictable
funding for the implementation of the Convention to Combat Desertification
remains a major obstacle for many affected developing countries where
desertification and land degradation threaten the livelihoods of millions of
people.

Chemicals dumped in Africa continue to cause damage to human health and the
environment. More than 50 000 tons of obsolete pesticides have accumulated
throughout the continent over the last four decades, with less than 5% of the
stockpiles being properly disposed of. The impact of this in many African and
other developing countries is intensified by weak import controls, insufficient
training on appropriate chemical use, a lack of safe destruction technologies,
and poor storage and stock management.

These are only a few examples of the escalating environmental challenges
facing the African continent. African governments are absolutely committed to
addressing these challenges and have devised many innovative programmes, guided
by the objectives of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD)
Environment Action Plan. However, in most cases, whether in the phase of
design, implementation or extrapolation and expansion to other areas of the
continent, the programmes require significant financial resources.

Adequacy of GEF resources

Global environmental challenges are growing in number, complexity and
intensity, and are particularly devastating to developing countries which
already face huge socio-economic challenges.

There is clearly a yawning mismatch between the scale of a growing set of
environmental challenges, and the resources that are made available to address
them.

As the financial mechanism for four international environmental conventions,
and a key financial source for projects with global environmental benefits, the
replenishment of the Global Environment Facility must keep pace with the size
and scope of the challenge it is required to address. In this respect, the 3rd
and 4th replenishments are a source of increasing concern to developing
countries, with the overall replenishment figure, in both instances, bloated by
the addition and carry over of unspent resources.

To take this forward we may want to ask how we create the political space to
constructively discuss the long-term role and resourcing of the GEF, in light
of escalating global challenges. This must be informed by a set of benchmarks
set by the Conventions. There appears to be a discontinuity in the current
replenishment process where "benchmarks" are based on what donors are prepared
to commit rather than a diligent costing of the resource requirements of
developing countries to implement the Conventions. For example, the resources
allocated for the land degradation focal areas under GEF 3, were not sufficient
to fully address the basic requirements of the Convention to Combat
Desertification, namely for developing countries to prepare National Action
Plans, let alone providing resources for those countries to implement the
plans.

Resource Allocation Framework

In addition to addressing the adequacy of resources, South Africa must
strongly raise concerns about the implications of the Resource Allocation
Framework (RAF) in limiting the allocation of resources to developing
countries, especially in Africa. The RAF system, based on the GEF Performance
Index and GEF benefit index, is resulting in 25% of the countries receiving 75%
of the resources. In practice this means that 90% of African countries find
themselves with a minimal group allocation of between USD 1 - USD 3 million
over four years. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that countries are
limited to access of only 50% of the total allocation in the first two years.
In this regard, it is vital that the COPs should also be active participants in
the RAF review process in two years time.

It is critical that GEF base its resource allocation on the needs and
priorities of countries rather than utilising an ex-ante allocation based on an
inequitably skewed formula. In order to address both the adequacy and the
allocation of resources, an independent review of the contribution of the GEF
as a financial mechanism, to the implementation of the Conventions is urgently
needed.

GEF governance

On the matter of governance structures, it is our view that the GEF Assembly
should be the highest GEF authority, and should be giving political guidance on
the future direction, policies, procedures, priorities and programming for the
GEF. It is the Council's role to operationalise the Assembly recommendations.
In this context, there is an urgent need for a comprehensive and strategic
review of the institutional and governance structures of the GEF, including the
constituency system, the replenishment process, operational efficiency and the
relationship between the various structures.

Conclusion

This Assembly precedes and follows a number of global meetings that are
attempting to address escalating global environmental challenges. However,
there is a more tangible urgency than mere markers on the calendar. It is
critical timing because we are reaching the tipping point in many ecosystems.
We must act now, because damage may become irreversible, or too costly to
reverse. We need to make the most of this opportunity to set the stage for
fundamental and lasting changes and to ensure that we do not lock-in pathways
that destroy eco-systems or undermine sustainable development or that do not
promote good global governance. Our task is to ensure an age of hope globally
and in particular in Africa. And we must do this in a renewed spirit of
solidarity.

Media enquiries: Mava Scott
Cell: 082 411 9821

Issued by: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
29 August 2006