Chemicals Focal Area: Past Experiences and Future Directions

1
Chemicals Focal Area Past Experiences and
Future Directions

• GEF Familiarization Seminar
• April 28-30, 2009

2
Chemicals Key Points 1. Background 2. GEF-4
Activities3. Outlook for GEF-5
3
Background to GEF Support (1)

• GEF is the financial mechanism to the Stockholm
  Convention (SC) on Persistent Organic Pollutants
  (POPs). Bilateral and other forms of assistance
  exist but GEF is by far the main source of
  external financial support.
• GEF started support to the development of
  National Implementation Plans (NIPs) since
  adoption of the SC in 2001.
• SC now counts 162 parties. More than 135
  countries working with the GEF to develop their
  NIPs for priority setting and identification of
  investment needs.

4
Background to GEF Support (2)

• GEF supports implementation of the Montreal
  Protocol (MP) in Countries with Economies in
  Transition (CEITs). GEF widely credited with
  sharing the success of the MP so far with amounts
  phased out in Russia and CEITs roughly equivalent
  to amounts phased out in all developing
  countries.
• A few projects addressing persistent toxic
  substances through the International Waters focal
  area, particularly mercury.

5
Level of Effort

• POPs since 2001 GEF has committed 360m that
  have leveraged 440m of co-financing.
• Under GEF-4, strong demand for (original)
  allocation of 300m.
• Evidence is that, as countries shift from
  preparation to implementation, co-financing ratio
  is increasing, with 1 GEF leveraging at least 2
  in co-financing.
• Ozone GEF total commitment of approximately
  180m, leveraging similar amount of co-financing.
  Bulk of the effort early to phase out CFCs and
  halons.
• Allocation under GEF-4 of 20m to start
  addressing HCFCs.

6
GEF-4 Activities (1)

• POPs strong shift from preparation (NIP
  development and SC ratification) to
  implementation of activities to reduce POPs
  releases to the environment. Generation of direct
  global environmental benefits as well as local
  health and environment benefits.
• Number of projects addressing for example PCB
  management and disposal, including in Brazil,
  China, Moldova, Tunisia, West Africa others
  addressing for example obsolete pesticides
  stockpiles management and disposal.

7
GEF-4 Activities (2)

• At the same time, building foundational
  capacities for sustainable prevention of further
  POPs releases, and particularly for the least
  developed countries.
• Cross-cutting strategy for sound chemicals
  management emphasises the necessity for POPs
  interventions to support countries framework for
  chemicals management, for cost-effectiveness and
  sustainability.

8
Outlook for GEF-5 (1)

• Central role of the GEF as financial mechanism of
  the SC.
• Strong demand continues to be expected to assist
  developing countries in meeting their POPs
  release reduction obligations.
• Increased attention to potential for synergies
  with other focal areas, in particular with
  climate mitigation and releases of
  un-intentionally produced POPs (dioxins).
• For ODS phase out expectation is that direct
  support will continue in a modest way, including
  addressing institutional strengthening in Central
  Asia and illegal trade but increased attention
  to potential for synergies with Climate
  mitigation interventions.

9
Outlook for GEF-5 (2)

• New challenges faced by the international
  community, for example with mercury.
• New chemicals, some of which actively used and
  traded, likely to be added to the list of
  controlled POPs.
• Proposal to address chemicals in a more
  comprehensive manner, whilst keeping focus on
  mandate as financial mechanism to the SC.
• Only way to avoid silos and ensure sustainability
  and cost-effectiveness of interventions at the
  country level particularly for the countries
  with lesser capacity.