Impact of CO capacity Differences

1
Impact of CO capacity Differences

• A high degree of concentration of the UNDP-GEF
  portfolio.
• Weak presence in countries where we should be
  more active due to a countrys potential to
  generate global environmental benefits in
• Traditional focal areas (biodiversity-rich
  Indonesia).
• Emerging areas (capacity-strapped SIDS and LDCs,
  land degradation and Africa).

2
Concentration of the Portfolio
10 of countries account for 54 of the portfolio
3
What Lessons Can we Learn from Experience?

• Key lesson emerging from past experience is that
  our target group (country offices) is highly
  diverse.
• One end of the spectrum heavy-hitters that
  account for a bulk of the portfolio.
• Other end LDCs and SIDS.
• In the middle anomalies such as Indonesia.
• Bottom line country offices mirror the diversity
  in country contexts and priorities in terms of
  the global environment.
• Standardized approaches to developing capacities
  are likely to be of limited impact
• Need to create incentives at the CO Level
  (balanced score card)

4
Towards a More Strategic Approach

• Basic minimum measures for all COs.
• Create a GEF section in UNDP intranet enabling
  quick access to GEF secretariat website, UNDP-GEF
  programming manual, PIMS, UNDP-GEF knowledge
  management efforts, and UNDP-GEF contacts.
• Working with BOM to include program management
  indicators in country office score cards.
• Collaboration with Regional Bureaux to mainstream
  GEF programme management.

5
Towards a More Strategic Approach

• Targeted measures to develop capacities for GEF
  implementation in a subset of offices.
• Selective approach (cannot strengthen all
  offices simultaneously).
• Strategic approach (prioritization underpinned by
  need to manage risk and focus on untapped
  potential).
• In partnership with regional bureaux (agreement
  on pivotal countries and division of
  responsibilities).
• Phase Activities (short, medium, longer term)