Fiji Readiness project workshop report: GCF access architecture, modalities and capacities for Fiji
Green Climate Fund (GCF) Readiness Programme
Workshop report: GCF access architecture, modality and
capacities for Fiji
UNDP and Climate Change Division (Ministry of Finance)
February 2016
i
Fiji Readiness project workshop report: GCF access architecture, modalities and capacities for Fiji
Table of Contents
1.
General introduction to the GCF workshop .......................................................................................... 1
2. Course design, materials and delegates ................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Training timetable ............................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Training materials ............................................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Delegates list ....................................................................................................................................... 4
3.
Evaluation of the GCF workshop........................................................................................................... 6
4.
Workshop outcomes ............................................................................................................................. 9
4.1 Summary of workshop discussion....................................................................................................... 9
4.2 Roadmap for GCF mobilisation and access ....................................................................................... 12
ii
Fiji Readiness project workshop report: GCF access architecture, modalities and capacities for Fiji
Acronyms
ADB
AE
AF
BACC
CCD
COP
CPEIR
EO
ESS
FBOS
FDB
FNU
GCF
GEF
GoF
LDC
MAC
MoF
MoHMS
N-AE
NCCCC
NDA
NDP
PCN
PS
SIDS
SPREP
SWG
UNEP
UNDP
USP
WRI
Asian Development Bank
Accredited Entity
Adaptation Fund
Budget and Aid Coordinating Committee
Climate Change Division (Min. of Finance, GoF)
Conference of Parties (of UNFCCC)
Climate Public Expenditure and Institutional Review
Executive Oversight (of NCCC)
Environmental and Social Safeguards (of GCF)
Fiji Bureau Of Statistics
Fiji Development Bank
Fiji National University
Green Climate Fund
Global Environmental Facility
Government of Fiji
Least Developed Countries
Marginal Abatement Cost
Ministry of Finance (GoF)
Ministry of Health and Medical Services (GoF)
National Accredited Entity
National Climate Change Coordinating Committee
National Designated Authority
National Development Plan
Project Concept Note
Permanent Secretary
Small Island Developing States
South Pacific Regional Environment Programme
Sector Working Group
United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Development Programme
University of the South Pacific
World Resources Institute
iii
Fiji Readiness project workshop report: GCF access architecture, modalities and capacities for Fiji
1. General introduction to the GCF workshop
Countries such as Fiji need climate change finance to support the climate change response. Although
climate finance is becoming increasingly available, a coherent country-led and cross-government
approach is needed to help mobilize financial resources in the most effective and efficient way. With the
Green Climate Fund (GCF) projected to become a significant component of global climate finance in the
next few years, there is value in instigating national arrangements to promote access. This has been
recognized and there is now a global program to support GCF access called the GCF Readiness Programme.
Fiji has mobilized UNDP-UNEP-WRI in collaboration with the Climate Change Division (CCD) to help
strengthen GCF access through this support mechanism.
The objectives of the GCF Readiness Program in Fiji are to:
1.
Strengthen coordination among stakeholders and institutions of national and sub-national
entities to manage and deliver climate finance.
2.
Strengthen institutional capacities (e.g. fiduciary standards) to align with internationally accepted
benchmarks and safeguards, as described in the GCF and Adaptation Fund (AF) and identifying an
implementing entity for direct access under the AF and GCF.
3.
Develop a system for identifying, prioritizing, and developing climate change programs/projects
with a view to helping them attract finance.
4.
Engage private sector and systems in place to attract private sector resources towards climate
change goals.
The need for a coordinated and cross-government approach to maximize GCF resourcing in order to
strengthen the national climate change response is linked to the first Objective to strengthen coordination
among stakeholders and institutions of national and sub-national entities to manage and deliver climate
finance. As part of the Readiness project, the World Resources Institute (WRI) in collaboration with project
partners delivered a workshop in January, 2016 to help decision-makers enhance their skills in prioritizing
adaptation options for investments. This February workshop was therefore focused on a complementary
aim to these WRI technical prioritisation procedures, and was targeted at the national access modality
and institutional arrangements for Fiji.
Access to the GCF is through the GCF Accredited Entities (AE). Project Proposals are submitted through
AEs to GCF for funding consideration. AE’s could be: International (e.g. UNDP, UNEP, ADB), Regional (e.g.
SPREP) or National (e.g. Environmental Investment Fund in Namibia, Ministry of Natural Resources in
Rwanda). There are no national AEs in the Pacific region although through the Fiji Readiness project a
submission for accreditation of Fiji Development Bank has been made. In addition to the different types
of AEs, there are also different levels of accreditation in terms of project financial scale, fiduciary standards
to permit different levels of GCF project activity and environmental and social risk thresholds.
1
Fiji Readiness project workshop report: GCF access architecture, modalities and capacities for Fiji
With such developments in GCF, it is timely at this juncture to assess what is the optimum architecture
for Fiji in terms of access to GCF. There are a number of pertinent questions: (i) Is one national AE enough
or should there be further development of a suite a national AE’s? (ii) What is the most effective way for
GoF to interact with regional and international GCF accredited entities? (iii) How can AEs most effectively
support the needs of line ministries, and other submitting entities, for GCF resourcing? (iv) What is the
role of CCD and the NDA (National Designated Authority) in optimizing a growing country-led GCF
portfolio? (v) Where are there capacity gaps in the access modality infrastructure and how can they be
filled? Consequently, the aim of this workshop was to determine a cross-government strategy for an
optimum country-led GCF access strategy for Fiji which will maximize opportunities for delivering the
climate change response.
The primary participants for the workshop are senior decision-makers and policy-makers operating in
climate change relevant sectors. The participants are drawn from key entities already involved in the
access architecture as well as bodies with remits for climate change response which could be supported
through GCF. The workshop is structured to provide both a detailed overview of some of the complexities
involved in GCF access, as well as time for informed discussion to promote key elements of the
architecture and access modality to GCF to emerge.
2. Course design, materials and delegates
2.1 Training timetable
The training timetable was developed based on discussions between UNDP and Ministry of Finance / CCD
and circulated to delegates prior to the workshop. The workshop timetable is outlined below:
Day 1: Monday, 8 February, 2016: How to access the Green Climate Fund?
Objective: The objective of the first day is to provide the background the GCF, the role of the
Readiness project and identify areas in which decisions need to be made in the determining the
national modality of GCF access.
9.00 – 9.30
Introduction: DS Strategic Planning and National Development
9.30 – 10.00
Role of the Ministry of Finance in climate change (Ledua Vakaloloma, Budget,
Ministry of Finance)
10.00 – 10.30
Morning tea
10.30 – 11.00
Key issues of the Climate Public Expenditure and Institutional review (Kevin
Petrini from UNDP)
11.00 – 11.30
Overview of the GCF readiness project in Fiji (Nanise Boginivalu, CCD / UNDP)
11.30 – 12.30
The end result - what does a GCF project look like? (Jeremy Hills, UNDP)
12.30 – 1.30
1.30 – 2.30
Lunch
Dimensions for effective mobilisation and capitalisation on the GCF (Jeremy Hills,
UNDP)
2
Fiji Readiness project workshop report: GCF access architecture, modalities and capacities for Fiji
2.30 – 3.00
Accredited Entity submission for Fiji: Fiji Development Bank (Mr Nafitalai
Cakacaka)
3.00 – 3.30 Afternoon tea
3.30 – 5.00 Discussion: what decisions need to be made to promote GCF access?
Day 2: Tuesday, 9 February, 2016: The GCF accreditation process and optimum access modalities
Objective: The objective of the second day is to initially focus on the process of accreditation and
experiences of GCF accreditation to date, and then with this mind, then to focus on possible modality
options using a range of AEs and the finally assess what considerations need to be made to allow a
preferred access modality to be determined for Fiji.
9 .00 – 10.00
10.00 – 10.30
10.30 – 11.00
11.30 – 12.00
12.30 – 1.30
1.30 – 3.00
3.00 – 3.30
3.30 – 5.00
Review of progress on GCF access and lessons from across the world - I (Jeremy
Hills, UNDP)
Morning tea
Review of progress on GCF access and lessons from across the world - II (Jeremy
Hills, UNDP)
A detailed view of GCF accreditation requirements (Jeremy Hills, UNDP)
Lunch
Alternative GCF access modalities for Fiji (Jeremy Hills, UNDP)
Afternoon tea
Discussion: assessment of optimum access modalities for Fiji?
Day 3: Wednesday (am), 10 February 2016: Operationalising a GCF access modality in Fiji
Objective: The objective of the final half-day is consider the roles and capacity in a preferred GCF
access modality and assess existing capacity in relation to defined remits, with this in mind, then
the final sessions are to help define the key steps that are required to construct a functional GCF
access modality across the determined institutional architecture.
9 .00 – 10.00
10.00 – 10.30
10.30 – 11.15
11.30 – 12.15
12.15 – 12.00
12.30 – 1.30
Discussion: finalisation of the overall GCF access structure for Fiji – roles and
capacity (Jeremy Hills, UNDP)
Morning tea
Discussion: finalisation of the overall GCF access structure for Fiji - main steps
forward to GCF mobilisation (Jeremy Hills, UNDP)
Discussion: way forward and key actions for Fiji
Closing remarks (PS Fisheries and Forests, Mr Samuela Lagataki)
Lunch
Actual execution of the workshop led to a degree of variance from the planned timetable. Three main
variances are worthy of mention:
3
Fiji Readiness project workshop report: GCF access architecture, modalities and capacities for Fiji



Firstly, in general terms, discussions were carried out during or after presentations rather than a
block in the afternoon. As this approach was preferred by the delegates, delivery in this mode was
accommodated by the UNDP team.
Secondly, with Ambassador of Climate Change, Amena Yauvoli unable to be present on the third
day, the afternoon of the second day, was rescheduled to have an open-question panel session
with Ambassador Yauvoli and Dr Hills (UNDP) followed by planning of a Roadmap for establishing
an effective GCF modality. This meant that the presentation on detailed accreditation
requirements was added into the 3rd day schedule.
Thirdly, to emphasize the need to justify cost effectiveness in mitigation projects, a MAC
(Marginal Abatement Cost) curve was presented and discussed at quite depth on day 3. The
MAC curve is an effective way to identify the cost effective mitigation techniques ($ per unit
CO2e) in which CO2e is “carbon dioxide equivalent” which is a standard unit for measuring
carbon footprints which allows contributions from different greenhouse gases {such as CH4 and
N20} to be commonly expressed in terms of the amount of CO2 that would create the same
amount of warming).
2.2 Training materials
The training materials were prepared for the workshop and all presentations are presented in Appendix
A.
2.3 Delegates list
The target group for the workshop was senior decision-makers and policy-makers operating in climate
change relevant sectors. As shown in the delegates list below (Table 2.1), good representation was
apparent.
Table 2.1: Delegates who attended the GCF Workshop.
GOVERNMENT
MINISTRIES
ROLE / NAME
Ministry
of Ms. Reshmi Kumari
Agriculture Ministry of Finance
Expenditure
Management
Analysis
Mr. Kashnil Swamy
Debt
Ms. Letila Tuiyalani
Email Address
[email protected]
and [email protected]
Unit
Unit [email protected]
Mr. Ledua Vakaloloma
[email protected]
A/Chief Economic Planning Officer
ODA, Budget Unit
Ministry of Fisheries Permanent
Secretary [email protected]
& Forests
Samuela Lagataki
Pranishma Kumar
4
Fiji Readiness project workshop report: GCF access architecture, modalities and capacities for Fiji
Ministry of Local Senior Environment Officer - Project [email protected]
Government, Urban Management
Development,
Mr. Rahul Chand
Housing
and
Environment
Ministry of Rural and Permanent
Secretary
Maritime
Director
Development,
Development
and Vakacegu
National
Disaster
Management
Ministry
Infrastructure
Transport
of Transport Planning
and Archana Arti
Unit
- [email protected]
Loata
-
Ms [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Department
of
Metereology, [email protected]
Principal
Scientific
Officer
Mr. Terry Atalifo
Department
of
Energy
- [email protected]
Senior
Scientific
Officer
Mr. Mikaele Belena
I Taukei Lands Trust Deputy GM (Operations, Research &
Board
Development)
– [email protected]
Mr. Solomoni Nata
Tebara Buses Comany CEO - Mr. Arvind Maharaj
[email protected]
Fiji
Electricity Executive Projects & Public Relations [email protected]
Authority
Manager
Mr. Karunesh Rao
Climate
Division
Unit
Leader
Accounting
&
Mr. Shalen Prasad
Change Director
Mr. Ovini Ralulu
Ministry of Health
Procurement [email protected]
Finance
CCD [email protected]
Mr. Mesake Semainaliwa, SPO
[email protected]
Mrs. Vasiti Nawadra-Taylor
[email protected]
Mr. Viliame Kasanawaqa
[email protected]
Mr. Vitale Varo
[email protected]
Ministry of Lands and Mr. Malakai Nalawa - DS
Mineral Resources
[email protected]
Strategic
Planning Mr. Krishna Prasad (only participating
and
National - welcome address)
Development
5
Fiji Readiness project workshop report: GCF access architecture, modalities and capacities for Fiji
Fiji
Bank
Development General Manager Business Risk [email protected]
Services - Mr. Nafitalai Cakacaka
Ministry of Foreign Ambassador Amena Yauvoli
Affairs
[email protected]
UNDP
Dr. Winifereti Nainoca
[email protected]
Mr. Kevin Petrini
[email protected]
Dr. Jeremy Hills
[email protected]
Ms. Nanise Boginivalu
[email protected]
Ms. Talei Elaisa
[email protected]
3. Evaluation of the GCF workshop
The delegates carried out a single evaluation of the course on the final day of the GCF workshop. The
training evaluation used semi-quantitative questions on the (i) organization, (ii) presentation and
instructors, and (iii) venue and then text answers to two questions.
The results of the evaluation are presented below (Tables 3.1 – 3.2).
Table 3.1 The semi-quantitative training evaluation responses from GCF delegates (the most common
response is highlighted, or both responses when equal frequency).
CRITERIA
A.
ORGANIZATION
1
Organizer and secretariat/support staff were
informative and responsive.
2
3
Implementation was scheduled at a suitable date
and time.
Location and facilities were convenient and
suitable for the purpose.
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
DISAGREE
NO
OPINION
AGREE
STRONGLY
AGREE
1
2
3
4
5
6
11
9
9
4
11
1
1
4
Overall, implementation was well organized and
accomplished its purpose.
8
10
5
Content was applicable to my organization
and/or current job.
2
15
6
The program/agenda was well paced within the
allotted time.
10
7
7
The sessions and topics were scheduled in a
logical order.
9
7
6
Fiji Readiness project workshop report: GCF access architecture, modalities and capacities for Fiji
B.
PRESENTERS / INSTRUCTORS
1
The presenters and/or instructors were good
communicators.
6
11
2
The materials were presented in an organized
manner.
9
9
3
Explanations were clear, comprehensive and
easy to understand.
8
9
4
Handouts (if provided) were relevant to the
topics.
7
10
5
Presenters were knowledgeable and gave
satisfactory responses to questions.
6
10
C.
VENUE
7
9
4
11
4
12
1
2
3
Visibility (able to clearly see presenters and the
presentations)
Acoustics (able to clearly hear presenters and the
discussion)
Meeting Space (the seating and working
environment was comfortable)
1
Table 3.2 Written feedback to evaluation questions (each new line is a different delegate).
What topic(s) did you find most interesting?
GCF modalities, process and setting up of the Implementation Framework.
All the topics covered during the panel of the workshop.
Accreditation access to GCF, areas of investment.
Dimensions for effective mobilisation. Capitalisation of the GCF. FDB presentation. Daily
recap of previous day.
CPEIR, GCF modality and components
Dimensions for effective mobilisation and capitalisation of the GCF, alternative GCF access
modalities.
GCF investment criteria, modality, access to funding, AF and Q&A sessions.
All topics covered were very informative.
Accreditation Entities and Marginal Abatement Cost.
Review of progress on GCF and lessons learnt and others as well.
Putting in place the necessary structures in order to get ready for accreditation.
The topics were linked / interrelated as there is a lot to grasp as part of the readiness process.
All topics covered were equally important and interesting.
Detailed view of GCF Accreditation. The MAC curve / Dimensions of mobilisation. The
enablers / results model. Great Awareness about GCF. Overall the content of the workshop
was informative and exciting.
7
Fiji Readiness project workshop report: GCF access architecture, modalities and capacities for Fiji
A detailed view of GCFs accreditation requirements. The end-result of what does a GCF
project look like. Review of process of GCF and dimensions checklist.
Topics on AE, way forward to prepare proposals and submit to GCF.
Accreditation, technical (MAC).
Any other comments or suggestions for improvement?
Workshop / training to be brought down to the sector level.
Well informed workshop – informative set-up of the workshop with engagement of
experienced personnel is a great advantage.
There should be more workshops to create awareness.
I consider it to be “too short” simply because there are much more areas that need further
discussions on, especially in terms of Fisheries & Forests as the Ministry intends to put
proposals to GCF access.
Communicate the Roadmap.
Very intensive and could be more opportune if the workshop was for 1 week.
Overall workshop was very informative and good for many first-time attendees.
Continue to work with the flexible nature of the agenda has run to be sensitive to the areas
of interest from participants without fully compromising the workshop objectives.
We need to really have high representation as it is very important.
Special thanks and appreciation to UNDP and all the organisers for the length and extent of
coverage in getting us all better informed and prepared.
Participants from other top-level government agencies will be beneficial in the long run.
Suggest more coverage on project proposals and the AE.
There is a need for workshops which clearly identify the way to go to obtain GCF. Consultant’s
ability to respond to needs and panel key. Follow on meetings – progress from resolutions.
A majority of delegates thought that the 2.5-day training was appropriate in length (88%), the remainder
(12%) felt that the course was too short.
The evaluation demonstrated a well targeted, organised and executed workshop with the highest
frequency of evaluation scoring in the highest category possible. The delegates seemed to have found the
workshop interesting and identified quite a range of different areas of GCF as the most interesting. There
was generally a feeling that the workshop has provided significant increase in awareness of GCF and
identification of what needs to be sorted out to ensure a GCF project pipeline. There was somewhat of a
call for further GCF training, especially in the sectors; the development of project concepts from sector
prioritization is covered in the subsequent GCF Roadmap (section 4).
8
Fiji Readiness project workshop report: GCF access architecture, modalities and capacities for Fiji
4. Workshop outcomes
4.1 Summary of workshop discussion
The workshop covered a lot of information (as presented in Appendix A) and also had extensive
discussions on the way that GCF can best mobilise and target GCF funds. The following text provides a
summary of the main points of these discussions, bold typeface is used to help identify key points:
Summary for day 1
1. Fiji amongst other SIDS is challenged in accessing climate finance because of (1) lack of climate
change prioritization and (2) limited domestic absorption capacity. There is a need to understand
the stringent global processes that are in place in terms of accessing climate finance. Accordingly, Fiji
needs to respond using existing national processes, institutions and capacities to facilitate the
effective flow of climate finance into Fiji. There is no need to create another level of bureaucracy in
Government in order to facilitate access e.g. of the GCF. Thus the need to engage smart diplomacy
e.g. Ambassador for Climate Change as Fiji’s voice working through the Pacific in engaging with the
other 195 states to leverage resources in terms of accessing and managing climate funds of not only
the GCF but others like the South –South Cooperation including the U$3.1 billion by the Chinese
Government. This is more imperative now in regards to the Paris Agreement concerning Climate
Finance. UNDP has put together 12 key points on analysis of COP 21 which can be shared with
Government if requested going forward in 2016 in order to capitalize on Paris Agreement. GCF intends
to programme US$2.5 billion for 2016, a 1400 % increase from US$168 million in November for which
it has put together a Strategic Plan to support this scaling up of funding.
2. There is a need to develop capacities in order to better access climate finance for government. Fiji’s
universities e.g. USP and FNU need to respond to this and accordingly accommodate this gap into
their provision of professional training e.g. in areas for GCF, targeting existing government senior
officers This was already introduced by USP and FNU but the challenge also lies with the retention
policies of government. There is a high turnover for government officials which affects the
sustainability and effectiveness of such trainings. On the other hand, the CPEIR recognizes this gap
and can be a means to engage donors to look at this in a more holistic manner across various levels
of government.
3. Coordination and coherence is a must for government agencies to ensure flows of benefits going
right down to community levels. The need to create awareness of Finance and Foreign Affairs
processes and existing mechanisms e.g. BACC, is important. Other government agencies, especially
those in the divisions and the communities need to understand the roles of government agencies so
that they are able to tap into the right window of assistance. Also timelines for submissions especially
for donor assistance should be practical noting the divisional spread of our rural and maritime ministry
and the impediments that are in place.
4. There are six areas of Opportunities for Improvement in Fiji’s CPEIR, part of which is already
implemented in terms of strengthening institutional arrangements. The others include capacity
development, strengthening public finance management, integration of climate change and disaster
9
Fiji Readiness project workshop report: GCF access architecture, modalities and capacities for Fiji
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
risk reduction into policies and plans, tracking climate change and disaster risk management
expenditures and enhancing development effectiveness. Implementation of the CPEIR is important as
it puts the GCF in the context of the whole of government approach as an enabling tool to better
access climate funds. The next step for the CPEIR is to get Cabinet endorsement which would lay the
platform for engagement with development partners to implement recommendations and
importantly oversight of its implementation.
The issue of benchmarking in climate finance is important. Fiji needs to showcase its good practices
in terms of government finances to better align its resources in terms of climate change activities. This
acts as a catalyst for increased climate finance.
GCF funds can be complicated and can be grant, loan and blended sources. The GCF is very different
from GEF which is 100% grant compared to the GCF which demands a Return-on-Investment and
involvement of the private sector. This helps to justify the logic of the selection of FDB as Fiji’s
potential national AE. GCF accreditation is a very complex and lengthy process with fiduciary
standards and Environmental and Social Safeguards (ESS). There is need to understand the different
levels of accreditation in place that governments can use as conduits to access GCF resources.
Moving forward, Fiji needs to optimize national AE capacity in order to promulgate a country-led
approach. Thus, even with FDB application in review at GCF, the Ministry of Health intention to pursue
GCF accreditation as a grant entity, in view of its Global Fund experience, appears sound. More so,
full support from Ambassador at Large is necessary to assist in this. On the other hand, implementers
of projects can also apply to be GCF accredited but this would have to be supported by NDA and of
course this will warrant serious considerations whether to apply for accreditation or just focusing on
building quality project proposals for the consideration of NDA to be submitted through the selected
Accredited Entity. GCF accreditation requires an organization to already have fiduciary and
governance systems in place and a clear and proven due diligence process of similar scale funds to
GCF scale disbursements.
Governments do not directly apply for GCF funding as all project submissions are through AEs. There
is no limit for funding that an entity can apply for but this will depend on the applying AE accredited
size, whether micro, small, medium or large. Governments need to have an understanding of the scale
of funding that they can apply for in terms of GCF. Regional balance is also an important consideration
especially as Fiji, being a SIDS competing with LDCs and African states. The NDA as the gatekeeper
also plays an important role in the GCF as it has to ensure that the project is in alignment to national
priorities and submitted through appropriate AEs.
FDB is applying for a Micro size AE (up to USD $10m). For FDB, as a N-AE, funds will come through
FDB and they will play a project oversight role with a steering committee and M&E, which will mean
expanding FDB’s current role which is presently limited into a Fund Manager role. The current position
of FDB is to continue to lend in terms of financing RE initiatives. GCF unlike other GEF financial
instruments will release the money in tranches ensuring that the AE honors its commitments.
The micro-size of accreditation of FDB is smaller than many potential GCF projects which will require
small- to large-sized AE. The country-led process established with N-AE’s is not aligned to the funding
expectations of perspective GCF proponents. The proposed National AE (FDB) is too small to deliver
the scale of GCF projects that was elaborated at the workshop. This means that projects will be
10
Fiji Readiness project workshop report: GCF access architecture, modalities and capacities for Fiji
through the Regional AE (SPREP, up to USD $ 25m) or more traditional regional development partners
(e.g. ADB, UNEP, UNDP, World Bank); this is the reverse of the country-led approach.
Summary for day 2
1. The business model of the GCF is country-ownership which is enabled through having national
accredited entities. GCF needs country driven processes but it imposes strict requirements.
Preferential treatment for the future is going into national systems. The aim of country ownership is
using governments to direct access funds from the GCF. The business-as-usual model is using Regional
or International entities as mediums between donor and government.
2. Fiji has a range of areas where development is required before it can effectively capitalize on GCF.
Fiji needs to put in place 5 main dimensions before it can really capitalize for GCF, including: Strategy,
Partnership, Processes and Resources, People and Leadership. There are some key questions to
address:
•
What is the most effective way to utilize AE assets for Fiji?
•
How can working partnerships be developed to generate significant and high benefit GCF
resources?
•
What processes needs to be developed/realigned to accommodate GCF mobilization?
•
What skills and capabilities are needed to promote GCF access?
•
Who provides leadership to maximize the benefit of GCF?
3. A lot of awareness and information discourse is still needed on GCF. Leadership needs to be
informed so that Fiji knows which direction it wants to take: accreditation or submit quality proposals
through already established IEs, mindful of the size of the project to the AE size. In addition, the
Ministry of Finance needs to streamline processes for efficiency purpose which will necessitate GCF
linking into government processes supported by national budget systems. A Communication platform
needs to be in place. It was further proposed that the Ambassador At Large (AAL) or Ambassador for
Climate Change - Amena Yauvoli, take the Leadership role to address vulnerabilities in National
Strategic Plans and enhance training on negotiation skills.
4. There is a need to develop a GCF Operation Manual from government on the GCF requirements and
mechanism. This manual will focus on two things: prioritizing adaptation and mitigation projects in
view of government’s development agenda which will lead on to developing comprehensive project
proposals and Accreditation. Development of a pipeline of projects with appropriate governmental
procedures, is vital for successful capitalisation.
5. The need to explore other GCF Readiness program that could include support for proposal
development under Activity 4. Fiji has potential access to further funds that can be used for a number
of aspects. If government can adequately mobilize, then support for project development may be a
worthy candidate for further funding.
6. There are previous experiences in other global financial instruments which are useful to aid
positioning in relation to GCF. Discussions were made on 5 related developments in Climate Financing
as backdrop to the GCF include learnings from the Adaptation Fund, SPREP as an AE, Gender policy in
GCF, establishment of the National Climate Fund, and Progress on the GCF instruments looking at
concerns of current GCF practices.
11
Fiji Readiness project workshop report: GCF access architecture, modalities and capacities for Fiji
7. Over 75 percent of entities that are GCF AE’s are also AF AEs, mainly because of the fast-track
accreditation route. In the case of Fiji, since we have a demand driven process in place relative to the
size of the projects that cannot be fully accommodated under FDB as an NAE (because of its micro
size), they may be a need to pursue another NAE or accordingly submit through an international AE.
SPREP is a small-sized regional AE so it does not qualify for some of Fiji’s major projects especially in
the RE sectors.
8. There are alternative options for GCF access modalities. The alternative GCF access modalities or
options for Fiji, include the Null model (no N-AE), Centralized model (only one N-AE) and the Dispersed
model (more than one AEs, including N-AEs). The preferred model for Fiji in terms of effectively
accessing GCF resources given Fiji’s smallness would be the dispersed model, provided the enablers
are in place, including legislations, governance, resources, institutions, etc. The scale of funds would
determine the AEs, thus prioritization in the GCF context is also important and strengthen
infrastructural services in order to negotiate successfully in the international arena.
9. There is a need for centralized data base with credible, quality and meaningful data to use as good
baselines; GCF projects require baselines. The onus is firstly on the ministries itself to clean up its
own data base ensuring that it is relevant and suitable for their purpose before it can be shared with
the Fiji Bureau Of Statistics (FBOS) to be further used by international organizations. This data needs
to be handled by IT people who know what they are doing. There is a need to learn from other data
bases in the region and related agencies. There is also a need for sharing of climate related data with
relevant agencies to complement their entities. This should be addressed as part of the
recommendations of the Inter-Ministerial Forum on Coordination Cabinet paper that was endorsed
in 2015.
10. Inclusivity in GCF projects is important and within Fiji a policy backdrop is developing. Ensuring
inclusivity including gender, disability, governance, transparency and indigenous interests is needed
to be addressed and mainstreamed in work plans of agencies and capitalizing on the National Gender
Policy passed in Cabinet in 2015. This will assist us as we move towards national accreditation or
developing project proposals.
11. There is a need to continue with the momentum of GCF policy discourse and discussion. A more
expanded wider sectoral working group in terms of understanding the modus operandi and dynamics
of the GCF for information sharing purposes is imperative. This however needs to be undertaken with
the right stakeholders who want to progress with GCF. There is also a need to also document lessons
learnt from other climate and environment related funds like GEF and communicate it to one another.
4.2 Roadmap for GCF mobilisation and access
To help push forward the GCF agenda, planning sessions were carried out during the workshop to
determine what is the best way forward and who needs to be involved and with what architecture. With
the potential for funding through the GCF being in the order of many magnitudes larger than the AF, it
was then agreed that it was worth pushing for a reasonably comprehensive approach to GCF access.
It was also agreed that there needs to be interim arrangements set up to quickly establish a workable
body to drive things forward and help maintain “first mover” advantage and start the process of ensuring
appropriate governance over the GCF. If this is not done there is the danger that a suite of non-priority
12
Fiji Readiness project workshop report: GCF access architecture, modalities and capacities for Fiji
and fragmented projects will be submitted for Fiji under GCF; this is likely to lead to poor value-added
gains and also” bleed” the fund of future potential funds. Whilst the funds in GCF are very large and partly
predicated to SIDS (alongside Africa and LDCs), the stated aims of the GCF is to maintain appropriate
geographic balance. Although country allotments are not entertained by the GCF, the geographical
balance will mean that Fiji’s GCF proposals will have to be appropriate to the resources in the GCF. The
scale of GCF funds for Fiji are presently unknown but they are also finite, this means that it is vital to
establish governance structures to manage the GCF access so that focus is maintained on the highest
priority projects for Fiji’s climate change response.
The development of the governance structure for Fiji was considered in 4 sequential phases:
Fig. 4.1 The four interlinked phases of development of the governance structure for GCF access.
Phase 1. Establish high-level
governance functions
Phase 2. Establish AE architecture
and rationale
Phase 3. Establish oversight and
technical prioritization functions
Phase 4. Develop GCF project
pipeline
13
Fiji Readiness project workshop report: GCF access architecture, modalities and capacities for Fiji
Within the 4 phases there are a number of actions which are required, through discussions at the
workshop the following suite of actions was proposed (Table 4.1).
Table 4.1. Roadmap for establishing management of GCF access (with institutional responsibilities in
brackets).
Phase 1: Establish high-level governance functions
1.1 Provide Paper to Cabinet (Cabinet Paper) to inform and propose that all GCF submissions should
be endorsed by the Cabinet prior to submission (UNDP / CCD, Minister - MoF).
1.2 Establish an entity to drive interim arrangements to strengthen GCF access and projects whilst the
subsequent actions are carried out; the interim body will include Ambassador of Climate Change,
Director of CCD and PS of key Ministries and will be expunged once the National Climate Change
Coordinating Committee (NCCCC) is in function.
Phase 2. Establish Accredited Entity architecture
2.1 Respond as required to the GCF feedback on the National Accredited Entity (Fiji Development
Bank) which has been submitted in November 2015 (UNEP / FDB).
2.2 Establish a rational protocol for the designation of further AEs and use of other AE (regional,
International) to maximise both country-led gains and benefits to the national climate change
response (CCD with support).
2.3 Further consider the submission of Grant Management Unit of Ministry of Health and Medical
Services (MoHMS) as a complementary national AE to FDB (MoHMS, CCD).
Phase 3: Establish oversight and technical functions
3.1 Revise and re-invigorate the National Climate Change Coordinating Committee (NCCCC) to
provide an oversight role and decision-making function with regard to the GCF project pipeline and
portfolio, through: (i) revision of the ToR, (ii) designating a small and nimble Executive Oversight
group, (iii) revising the Committee’s title (CCD, MoF).
3.2 To aid prioritisation and mainstreaming of climate change across government, revise the ToR for
the Sector Working Groups (SWG) to include a process of prioritisation with regard to climate change
(CCD and PS).
Phase 4: Develop GCF project pipeline
4.1 Track emergent sector priorities onto GCF investment criteria to identify a small suite of potential
GCF-relevant projects which have high national development priority and aligned to the National
Development Plan (NDP) and select AE, based on the rational protocol for AE selection (SWG).
4.2 Develop Project Concept Notes (PCN) for selected priority projects which fit the GCF investment
Criteria (CCD and relevant Ministries).
14
Fiji Readiness project workshop report: GCF access architecture, modalities and capacities for Fiji
4.3 Submit PCN to GCF once cleared through the EO-NCCC and inform NDA officially of the Concept
submissions (AE, CCD and relevant line ministries)
4.4 Following feedback from GCF submit successful PCNs to Cabinet for approval (CCD, MoF).
4.5 On approval of the Cabinet, develop Full Proposals of agreeable projects to GCF and submit all
with a “no objection” letter from the NDA (AE, CCD, relevant line ministries).
4.6 To maintain the pipeline, iterate project development process on guidance from NCCC (CCD,
SWG).
15
Fiji Readiness project workshop report: GCF access architecture, modalities and capacities for Fiji
Appendix A: Presentations from the GCF access architecture and modality workshop
16