FREE DAILY EMAIL

Date : 29/08/2006
Source: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
Title: Schalkwyk: South African Statement at the Global Environment Facility


South African statement at the Global Environment Facility, delivered by the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Marthinus van Schalkwyk, Cape Town International Convention Centre

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

SPONSORED BY

Advanced