As important as the financial figures are, they are less important than the realization of the institution in its early stages that environmental problems and issues could not be dealt with in isolation. The underlying causes of environmental degradation often relate to inappropriate economic and social policies, an inadequate legal framework, institutional weakness and poor public awareness. Therefore the GEF has moved away from financing isolated projects, and has begun constructive policy dialogue with a number of its major partners, so that lending is given in stages, dependent on agreed performance criteria being met. Over time, this will improve the sustainability of the GEF’s operations and its environmental impact.

Some of the most innovative approaches have been in promoting renewable energy

Some of the most innovative approaches of the GEF have been in promoting renewable energy and energy efficiency by increasing demand so it becomes more attractive for the private sector to develop and sell such technologies. Examples are in the development of off-grid solar photovoltaic systems for rural electrification in Kenya, Sri Lanka, Viet Nam and Peru; biogas power from sewage treatment plants or landfills in India and Jordan; wind power in India; and bagasse-based power in Mauritius. Most notably, commercialization in Brazil of an efficient new biomass power technology from both sugar cane and woodchips from plantations of rapidly growing trees inspired the development of a similar plant in Yorkshire in the United Kingdom. The ultimate aim of all these new technologies is of course to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, thereby slowing the pace of climate change.

Intense activity
Biodiversity conservation has been an area of intense activity for the GEF, but one where results have been slower to become evident. This is partly because of the inherent complexity of the problem. However, the GEF has been instrumental in moving away from purely conservation activities to an approach that emphasizes the sustainable use of biodiversity. This is consistent with my own view that for environment to be effectively integrated with development, we must look at how the environment can be used sustainably for the benefit of poor people. This was the essence of the new operational programme dealing with integrated ecosystem management.

As noted above, the GEF has always encouraged broad participation in its projects. An effective instrument in this regard has been the Small Grants Programme, where small, strategically targeted projects can contribute to solving global environmental problems while enhancing the security of livelihoods of poor people. The programme has received strong support from relevant government agencies, academic institutions, NGOs, local governments and community groups. Since one of the keys to more effective environmental performance is the level of public awareness in the community, the programme provides valuable examples of what can be achieved, and improves the chances of such activities being sustainable.

What are the priorities the GEF should address as it moves towards its second decade? I suggest there are three:

• More emphasis on the policies that can influence the integration of global environmental issues into normal government programmes, backed up by lending and the building up of appropriate domestic institutional capacity.

• Strengthening its catalytic role, through mainstreaming, co-financing and, particularly, the replication of successful activities on a much larger scale.

• Much increased cooperation with the private sector to pioneer commercial approaches to delivering environmental benefits through developing and expanding effective market demand in developing countries.