system for transparent allocation of resources (star)

SyStem for

tranSparent allocation of reSourceS

(Star)

1

What is the STAR?

The STAR is a short name of the System for Transparent Allocation of Resources. With the STAR, the GEF Secretariat allocates resources in an indicative way to its eligible countries in a replenishment period. It was developed during 2009-2010 to upgrade the Resource Allocation Framework (RAF), which was the former GEF resource allocation system used in the fourth replenishment period of the GEF (GEF-4). In the fifth replenishment period of the GEF (GEF-5), the STAR covers three focal areas: biodiversity (BD), climate change (CC), and land degradation (LD). Other focal areas and programs may be covered by the STAR in the future GEF replenishment periods. Why did the GEF change from the RAF to the STAR?

The GEF Secretariat developed the STAR to improve the RAF by addressing a number of shortcomings that were identified in the mid-term evaluation conducted by the GEF Evaluation Office. It also took into account the views of recipient countries and the experience of the GEF Agencies in implementing the RAF.

How is the STAR different from the RAF?

The GEF Secretariat has made at least ten revisions to the allocation system from the GEF-4 RAF to the GEF-5 STAR. The following table highlights these changes.

table 1 comparison of the Star against the raf

GEF-5 STAR GEF-4 RAF

Focal areas covered BD, CC, and LD BD and CC

Total resources in the STAR$968 million in BD, $1,088 million in CC, and $324 million in LD.

$901.4 million in BD and $900 million in CC.

Individual country allocations 144 eligible countries58 were in BD, 50 in CC, and others in the group.

Flexibility for countries with small allocations Yes No

Caps 11% in CC 15% in CC

Floors$2 million in CC, $1.5 million in BD, and $0.5 in LD

None

GDP per capita index to favour low income countries Yes No

Accounting for countries’ forested areas in CC allocations Yes No

Weights of marine scores in BD 25% 20%

Eligibility to Eastern European countries No Yes

ThE GLOBAL ENvIRONmENT FACILITY 2

What are the main benefits of the STAR?

The main benefits of the STAR for eligible countries are predictability of funding and flexibility in programming. This will enhance planning and contribute to country ownership of GEF projects and programs. In addition, the STAR can incentivize eligible countries to maximize their investment benefits, so that they may get higher allocations in the next replenishment period.

Why are international waters or persistent organic pollutants not included in the STAR?

The three GEF focal areas to be covered by the STAR are biodiversity, climate change, and land degradation. The other focal areas were excluded because of the limited availability of suitable indicators of global environmental benefits and a lack of adequate datasets.

How are indicative country allocations calculated?

The funding envelope that a given country can access during a replenishment period is called “indicative allocation”. Indicative allocations are calculated based on a combination of the GEF benefits index (GBI), the GEF performance index (GPI), and a social and economic index based on the Gross Domestic Product (GDPI). The GBI represents the global environmental benefits that can be generated for each focal area in a specific country. The GPI is specific to a country, and is the same across all focal areas. The GDP-based index is a new design feature of the STAR. The rationale to have the new index in the STAR is that poorer countries need additional funding to build the capacity that is required to ensure the success of GEF project development and implementation. The GDPI is the same for all focal areas in a country.

What is the GBI?

A GBI in the STAR is an index to measure GEF’s investment benefits in a specific focal area in a country. In the STAR, there are three GBIs: GBIBD, GBICC, and GBILD. They are directly related to environmental indicators for three focal areas: biodiversity, climate change, and land degradation. The GBIs in a focal area represent a country’s relative share of GEF potential benefits that can be generated by a fixed amount of resource input in the focal area. The higher the GBI in a focal area, the higher the investment benefits to be generated.

What is the GPI?

The GPI in the STAR is an index to provide a relative ranking of eligible countries’ performance and capacity to deliver potential global environmental benefits. The GPI is the same across all focal areas in a country. The calculation of the GPI is based on a country’s past and current

3SYSTEm FOR TRANSPARENT ALLOCATION OF RESOuRCES

performance in project development and implementation, and on the quality of each country’s policies and institutions. The GPI therefore provides a proxy measure of each country’s capacity to successfully implement GEF programs and projects in order to deliver the potential global environmental benefits identified by the GBI.

What is the impact of the GDP-based index on allocations?

The GDP-based index (GDPI) is designed so as to increase the allocation of countries with low GDP per capita, decrease the allocation of countries with higher GDP per capita, and keep the allocations with middle GDP per capita unchanged. The higher the GDP per capita, the larger impact the GDPI will have. under the $4.25 billion scenario, this GDPI will reduce the allocation to the richest countries by up to 7%, and increase allocations by up to 12% for countries at the lowest range of GDP per capita.

Does the GDP index provide more allocations to all vulnerable countries?

The GDP index increases a small amount of allocations to least developed countries (LDCs), and slightly decreases allocations to the richest countries. It does not necessarily increase allocations to any vulnerable countries. For example, the vulnerability of small island developing states (SIDS) is not addressed in the GDP index, since SIDS with small economies and relatively small populations can have a comparatively high per capita GDP. The STAR uses floors to take care of SIDS and small countries, which are highly sensitive to natural disasters.

What is an allocation floor?

An allocation floor is the minimum indicative allocation for a focal area for an eligible country in the STAR. This floor has been set at $2 million for climate change, $1.5 million for biodiversity, and $0.5 million for land degradation. Therefore, a country can program up to $4 million if it is eligible in all three focal areas. Without the provision of an allocation floor, several countries would have been allocated a smaller amount of resources that would not allow preparation of a viable-sized project.

Is there a maximum limit that any country can receive in a focal area?

maximum limits (or caps) for country indicative allocations were set at 11 percent of total funds for climate change, and 10 percent of total funds for biodiversity and land degradation. under the $4.25 billion GEF-5 replenishment scenario, only one country is capped in climate change, and no countries are capped in biodiversity and land degradation.


What happened in GEF-5 to the category of “group” countries that existed in GEF-4?

The rule of “group country” allocation that existed in RAF has been abolished in the STAR. Every eligible country within the STAR will have an indicative allocation, the minimum being the sum of floored amounts of the three focal areas. This ensures that the countries previously included in “groups” under the RAF have individually allocations to develop projects for GEF funding. This improves the situation for 112 countries in climate change and 89 countries in biodiversity.

Why do some countries get a smaller allocation in biodiversity in GEF-5 than in GEF-4?

The calculation of indicative country allocation scores for biodiversity under the STAR is based on three indices: (i) the biodiversity GEF Benefits Index (GBIBD); (ii) the GEF Performance Index (GPI): (iii) the GDP-based index (GDPI). The decrease in BD allocation scores for some countries is essentially due to at least one of the three indices.

The same GBIBD data were used in the RAF and in the STAR. In the RAF, the GBIBD score consisted of two components: (1) Terrestrial Score (80%) and (2) marine Score (20%). In the STAR, the weights were slightly modified — Terrestrial (75%) and marine (25%). This change has caused drops in some countries’ scores in GBIBD.

The GPI share might also drop in some countries. When developing the RAF, due to non availability of CPIA (IDA indicators) performance data for some countries, the GPI data for these countries were computed from the IFAD rural sector indicator. In the STAR, the approach was modified, and the average CPIA data or minimum CPIA data were used for countries which did not have CPIA data. more details on this issue are available in Annex 3 of the STAR Policy Paper: System for Transparent Allocation of Resources (STAR), GEF/P3, June 24, 2010. http://thegef.org/gef/policy/STAR

The last factor is the GDPI, the new income adjustment index in the STAR. With this index active, the STAR will shift a small amount of resources from richer countries to poorer countries. If a country’s GDP per capita in 2008 was more than $2,700, this country may contribute a very small share of allocation to a country whose GDP per capita was less than $2,700.

Therefore, the reduction of resource allocation in BD for some countries might be caused by any one or all of the above factors. To summarize, the STAR is an improvement over the RAF in several ways and therefore it is bound to result in changes as some parameters evolve as noted above.


Does reporting to Conventions have to be funded out of a country’s indicative allocation?

In contrast with RAF, additional resources will be available outside the STAR to fund reporting to Conventions, with up to $500,000 per country for biodiversity and climate change. Countries can always program higher amounts for these purposes by adding resources from their national allocations.

Does the GEF support reporting for land degradation?

Yes. The GEF Council has also agreed that resources in addition to the country allocations will be available to support countries in their reporting against the 10-year strategic plan of the united Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (uNCCD), with up to $150,000 per country.

Are there any special provisions for Sustainable Forest Management, a theme that cuts across all the focal areas under the STAR?

The GEF Council has set aside resources from the three focal areas of biodiversity, climate change, and land degradation, to create a Sustainable Forest management (SFm) incentive program of $200 million. This would ensure that the GEF can continue to act strategically in this arena and support the multiple international conventions related to forests, while addressing synergies and trade-offs between different focal area objectives.

How are the interests of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) represented in the STAR?

GEF-eligible countries are encouraged to include CSOs in their internal national discussions regarding programming of GEF resources under STAR. CSO projects can be financed under the STAR, but, in addition, funding for CSOs and Community Based Organisations (CBOs) is provided through the GEF Small Grants Programme (SGP) which is outside of the STAR.

How are the interests of the private sector represented in the STAR?

GEF-eligible countries are encouraged to include the private sector in their internal national discussions regarding programming of GEF resources. moreover, funding for the GEF Earth Fund which specifically targets the private sector is provided outside of the STAR. This will ensure that the GEF pursues its on-going efforts to leverage private sector investments for delivering global environmental benefits.


Is there a restriction on how much money a country can access at any time during GEF-5?

Another improvement of the STAR over the RAF is the elimination of the “fifty percent rule”. This rule prevented countries from utilizing more than fifty percent of their indicative allocations during the first two years of GEF-4. This feature was identified by the mid-term review and the GEF Council as hindering operations and country ownership. In the STAR under GEF-5, there will be no such constraint.

Can a country keep all its indicative allocation until the end of GEF-5?

In principle yes; there is no particular condition or restriction for how a country uses its allocation during the replenishment period. however, for the system to run as smoothly as possible, and to take into account absorptive capacity, it is recommended that countries develop and submit project proposals for funding over the entire replenishment period. moreover, allocated resources that most likely will not be utilised during the replenishment period can be reallocated to other countries and programs at the very end of the replenishment period.

If a country did not use its GEF-4 indicative allocations, has that affected its allocation in GEF-5?

No. Every country has started GEF-5 with a clean slate. This means that the GEF-4 allocations are independent of those generated by the STAR for GEF-5. however, a country cannot carry over its unused GEF-4 resources to GEF-5.

Is there any flexibility to move individual country allocations from one focal area to another?

Yes, the STAR has built in flexibility for countries for which the sum total of its focal area allocations is under a certain threshold. Countries below the threshold will be allowed to use the total of their allocations across all and any STAR focal areas during the GEF-5 cycle. The threshold has been set to ensure that at least ninety percent of total GEF-5 biodiversity and climate change resources are in fact used for projects in these focal areas.

What is the minimum amount of resources allocated to a country?

A country will have at least $4 million for programming in GEF-5 across all focal areas subject to STAR if the country is eligible in all three focal areas.


What is the threshold for countries to flexibly use resources?

under the current $4.25 billion replenishment scenario, countries with a total allocation of up to $7.00 million (when adding up biodiversity, climate change, and land degradation), would have the flexibility to allocate these $7.00 million in any or all of these three focal areas, without having to respect the respective proportions.

Which are the African countries that benefit from this flexibility?

Burundi, Comoros, Cape verde, Chad, Central African Republic, Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liberia, mauritania, Niger, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Togo, and Zimbabwe.

Which countries from Asia and the Pacific benefit from the flexibility?

Bhutan, Cook Islands, Iraq, Jordan, Kiribati, Lebanon, maldives, marshall Islands, micronesia, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu, and vanuatu.

Which countries in Europe and Central Asia benefit from the flexibility?

Albania, Bosnia and herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, The former Yugoslav Republic of macedonia, montenegro, Serbia, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan.

Which are the Latin American and Caribbean countries that benefit from the flexibility?

Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, El Salvador, Grenada, Guyana, Nicaragua, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, and uruguay.

Is there any provision for flexibility for countries with total indicative allocation higher than the “flexibility threshold”?

Yes, for countries with total allocations in the three focal areas greater than $7.00 million, marginal adjustments among the three focal areas are allowed to complement GEF funding for focal areas that are lacking resources. These marginal adjustments vary by focal area and by country.


more detailed information on this variation is available in a GEF policy paper at paragraph 24, page 6: System for Transparent Allocation of Resources (STAR), GEF/P.3, dated June 24, 2010. http://thegef.org/gef/policy/STAR

How is the biodiversity benefits index calculated?

For biodiversity, the “benefits index” is built utilizing the updated GEF-4 benefits index, but with an increased weight for the marine component from 20 to 25 percent. The GBI makes maximum use of the available, scientifically-reliable information for a cross-country assessment of terrestrial and marine biodiversity. The GBI reflects the complex, highly uneven distribution of species and threats to them across the ecosystems of the world, both within and across countries. In terrestrial biodiversity, the GBI accounts for eco-region representation, species representation, threatened species, and threatened eco-regions. In marine biodiversity, it accounts for species representation.

How is the climate change benefits index calculated?

For climate change, the “benefits index” is built, as for GEF-4, with an emission related component adjusted for a factor that takes into account improvement in carbon intensity since the base year of 1990. In addition, a small five percent component was added that is related to forest cover and deforestation. Such a component is a modest initial attempt to reflect the importance of forest cover and deforestation, whilst recognising that related matters are still being negotiated under the uNFCCC, and that currently there are methodological issues related to indicators of carbon stocks.

How is the land degradation benefits index calculated?

For land degradation, the “benefits index” takes into account a combination of the total land area affected by land degradation, the proportion of dry lands, and the proportion of rural population. These three indicators are based on the need to control and prevent land degradation, to combat desertification as the extreme case of land degradation in dry lands, and to address the livelihood needs of vulnerable populations. The proportion of dry lands was given a greater weight in the index to reflect the priorities of the uNCCD in it’s recently adopted 10-year Strategy.

When will the GEF Secretariat reallocate the GEF-5 resources?

As long as additional cumulative resources, such as those from donors, exchange rate gains, and investment income, are $300 million greater than the GEF-5 replenishment figures to the GEF Trust Fund, the STAR model will be run within one month after these additional resources become available. Otherwise there will be no reallocation.


What are the most recent STAR allocations?

Country

GEF-4 RAF GEF-5 STAR Flexible

$3.1BnInitial allocation

($mn)

$4.25BnIndicative allocation ($mn)

CC BD CC BD LD Total

Afghanistan Group 3.50 2.00 3.35 3.89 9.24 No

Albania Group Group 2.00 1.50 0.58 4.08 Yes

Algeria 7.60 3.70 9.17 3.87 1.99 15.03 No

Angola Group Group 5.18 6.99 3.48 15.65 No

Antigua and Barbuda Group Group 2.00 1.50 0.94 4.44 Yes

Argentina 13.30 14.50 20.21 14.61 4.96 39.78 No

Armenia Group Group 2.35 1.50 4.12 7.97 No

Azerbaijan 4.10 Group 6.52 1.50 3.46 11.48 No

Bahamas Group Group 2.00 4.26 1.48 7.74 No

Bangladesh 6.70 Group 9.65 1.88 1.12 12.65 No

Barbados Group Group 2.00 1.50 0.50 4.00 Yes

Belarus 7.90 Group 9.56 1.50 0.50 11.56 No

Belize Group Group 2.00 2.44 0.68 5.12 Yes

Benin Group Group 2.00 1.50 4.65 8.15 No

Bhutan Group Group 2.00 1.96 0.53 4.50 Yes

Bolivia, Plurinational State of 3.10 11.40 5.93 11.44 3.12 20.49 No

Bosnia and herzegovina Group Group 2.77 1.50 0.66 4.93 Yes

Botswana Group Group 3.18 2.11 5.21 10.50 No

Brazil 38.10 63.20 53.92 68.22 7.17 129.31 No

Burkina Faso Group Group 3.23 1.50 5.10 9.83 No

Burundi Group Group 2.00 1.50 1.07 4.57 Yes

Cambodia 3.30 Group 2.21 3.85 1.22 7.28 No

Cameroon Group 11.90 2.97 10.31 1.66 14.95 No

Cape verde Group 4.10 2.00 3.52 1.48 7.00 Yes

Central African Republic Group Group 2.00 1.68 1.75 5.44 Yes

Chad Group Group 2.20 1.91 2.72 6.82 Yes

Chile 6.10 15.70 9.00 18.09 1.97 29.07 No

China 150.00 44.30 149.60 52.67 9.42 211.69 No

Colombia 8.90 36.60 13.43 37.49 2.44 53.36 No

Comoros Group Group 2.00 2.08 0.70 4.78 Yes

Congo Group Group 2.00 3.28 1.04 6.32 Yes

Cook Islands Group Group 2.00 2.14 0.50 4.64 Yes


Country



($mn)



Costa Rica Group 12.00 3.03 11.27 0.75 15.04 No

Côte d'Ivoire Group 3.60 2.00 3.25 2.94 8.19 No

Croatia 0.00 Group 3.33 1.50 0.76 5.59 Yes

Cuba 4.20 14.70 4.40 11.52 1.11 17.03 No

Democratic People's Republic of Korea 6.40 Group 6.93 1.50 0.51 8.94 No

Democratic Republic of the Congo Group 10.40 8.92 13.81 0.67 23.41 No

Djibouti Group Group 2.00 1.50 3.14 6.64 Yes

Dominica Group Group 2.00 1.50 0.50 4.00 Yes

Dominican Republic Group 5.80 2.58 5.36 0.72 8.66 No

Ecuador Group 23.20 4.07 24.37 3.39 31.82 No

Egypt 11.50 4.30 14.48 4.58 1.49 20.55 No

El Salvador Group Group 2.00 1.50 0.59 4.09 Yes

Equatorial Guinea Group Group 2.00 1.50 0.50 4.00 Yes

Eritrea Group Group 2.00 1.50 3.13 6.63 Yes

Ethiopia 4.90 7.70 6.59 8.13 4.29 19.02 No

Fiji Group 5.10 2.00 4.56 0.59 7.15 No

Gabon Group Group 2.00 3.40 0.91 6.31 Yes

Gambia Group Group 2.00 1.50 4.57 8.07 No

Georgia Group Group 2.00 1.50 2.05 5.55 Yes

Ghana Group Group 2.45 2.62 3.78 8.85 No

Grenada Group Group 2.00 1.50 1.16 4.66 Yes

Guatemala Group 8.20 2.28 7.99 0.94 11.22 No

Guinea Group Group 2.00 2.43 1.50 5.93 Yes

Guinea-Bissau Group Group 2.00 1.50 1.10 4.60 Yes

Guyana Group Group 2.00 3.26 1.12 6.37 Yes

haiti Group 4.10 2.00 4.56 0.79 7.35 No

honduras Group 6.80 2.00 7.27 0.78 10.05 No

India 74.90 29.60 93.75 30.58 5.10 129.43 No

Indonesia 16.30 41.40 29.67 54.17 4.07 87.91 No

Iran (Islamic Republic of) 16.50 6.70 18.69 6.33 3.75 28.77 No

Iraq Group Group 2.58 1.50 4.08 Yes


Country



($mn)



Jamaica Group 5.10 2.00 4.80 2.09 8.89 No

Jordan Group Group 2.06 1.50 3.44 7.00 Yes

Kazakhstan 13.50 5.50 15.49 4.76 5.09 25.34 No

Kenya 3.40 7.90 5.00 8.95 4.26 18.21 No

Kiribati Group Group 2.00 1.69 0.56 4.25 Yes

Kyrgyzstan Group Group 2.00 1.50 3.05 6.55 Yes

Lao People's Democratic Republic Group 5.20 3.26 6.11 1.49 10.86 No

Lebanon Group Group 2.00 1.50 2.75 6.25 Yes

Lesotho Group Group 2.00 1.50 0.81 4.31 Yes

Liberia Group Group 2.00 2.42 0.62 5.04 Yes

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Group Group 2.09 1.50 0.91 4.49 Yes

madagascar Group 24.20 4.34 26.06 2.88 33.27 No

malawi Group 4.20 2.00 4.39 1.19 7.58 No

malaysia 11.30 15.20 14.24 14.66 1.41 30.31 No

maldives Group Group 2.00 2.54 0.91 5.45 Yes

mali Group Group 3.54 1.96 4.04 9.54 No

marshall Islands Group Group 2.00 2.02 0.50 4.52 Yes

mauritania Group Group 2.00 2.05 2.87 6.92 Yes

mauritius Group 5.60 2.00 5.19 0.89 8.08 No

mexico 28.30 54.60 40.03 52.75 5.47 98.25 No

micronesia (Federated States of) Group Group 2.00 3.49 0.90 6.38 Yes

mongolia Group 3.80 3.19 4.33 3.34 10.86 No

montenegro Group Group 2.00 1.50 0.65 4.15 Yes

morocco 3.80 4.30 5.81 4.90 5.04 15.75 No

mozambique Group 6.80 3.19 7.00 2.87 13.06 No

myanmar Group Group 7.12 6.72 1.51 15.35 No

Namibia Group 6.50 2.00 6.28 5.69 13.97 No

Nauru Group Group 2.00 1.50 0.50 4.00 Yes

Nepal Group Group 4.02 2.67 1.60 8.29 No

Nicaragua Group 4.00 2.00 3.94 0.78 6.72 Yes

Niger Group Group 2.00 1.50 3.38 6.88 Yes

Nigeria 9.30 5.60 14.29 5.64 3.14 23.08 No


Country



($mn)



Niue Group Group 2.00 1.50 1.05 4.55 Yes

Pakistan 13.20 5.10 12.61 4.92 4.17 21.69 No

Palau Group Group 2.00 1.92 0.50 4.42 Yes

Panama Group 11.20 2.16 11.29 0.51 13.95 No

Papua New Guinea Group 12.50 2.00 13.32 1.17 16.49 No

Paraguay Group Group 2.89 2.95 2.81 8.65 No

Peru 4.60 25.30 8.71 26.25 2.97 37.93 No

Philippines 6.60 21.30 8.83 25.96 1.04 35.83 No

Republic of moldova Group Group 2.00 1.50 4.88 8.38 No

Russian Federation 72.50 25.30 87.01 24.37 8.18 119.57 No

Rwanda Group Group 2.00 1.50 1.08 4.58 Yes

Saint Kitts and Nevis Group Group 2.00 1.50 0.98 4.48 Yes

Saint Lucia Group Group 2.00 1.87 0.86 4.73 Yes

Saint vincent and the Grenadines Group Group 2.00 1.50 0.71 4.21 Yes

Samoa Group Group 2.00 2.43 0.93 5.36 Yes

São Tomé and Principe Group Group 2.00 2.77 2.73 7.50 No

Senegal Group Group 2.41 1.80 4.92 9.13 No

Serbia 0.00 Group 4.46 1.50 0.70 6.66 Yes

Seychelles Group 5.30 2.00 4.90 0.71 7.60 No

Sierra Leone Group Group 2.00 1.50 0.68 4.18 Yes

Solomon Islands Group Group 2.00 3.60 0.65 6.25 Yes

South Africa 23.90 22.50 25.71 21.68 5.25 52.65 No

Sri Lanka Group 6.40 2.67 7.84 2.16 12.68 No

Sudan 5.70 4.30 8.88 3.68 2.67 15.23 No

Suriname Group 0.00 2.00 3.00 0.55 5.55 Yes

Swaziland Group Group 2.00 1.50 2.69 6.19 Yes

Syrian Arab Republic 4.90 Group 5.39 1.50 4.30 11.19 No

Tajikistan Group Group 2.00 1.50 2.44 5.94 Yes

Thailand 14.70 9.20 20.10 9.05 2.48 31.63 No

The former Yugoslav Republic of macedonia Group Group 2.00 1.50 2.48 5.98 Yes

Timor-Leste Group Group 2.00 1.50 0.90 4.40 Yes


Country



($mn)



Togo Group Group 2.00 1.50 1.99 5.49 Yes

Tonga Group Group 2.00 1.59 0.75 4.34 Yes

Trinidad and Tobago Group Group 2.94 2.74 1.24 6.91 Yes

Tunisia 0.00 Group 4.00 1.50 5.36 10.86 No

Turkey 17.50 6.10 18.03 5.65 3.39 27.07 No

Turkmenistan 0.00 Group 5.40 1.70 3.27 10.37 No

Tuvalu Group Group 2.00 1.50 0.59 4.09 Yes

uganda 3.10 4.00 4.64 3.83 2.22 10.68 No

ukraine 18.90 Group 22.46 1.50 2.99 26.94 No

united Republic of Tanzania 4.80 12.80 7.86 13.95 5.61 27.43 No

uruguay Group Group 3.47 1.99 0.63 6.09 Yes

uzbekistan 9.30 Group 12.77 1.65 4.98 19.40 No

vanuatu Group Group 2.00 2.55 0.89 5.44 Yes

venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 8.80 16.70 11.77 14.49 0.95 27.21 No

viet Nam 8.50 10.20 13.89 12.12 1.50 27.52 No

Yemen Group Group 2.66 4.27 2.11 9.04 No

Zambia Group 5.10 3.77 4.26 3.01 11.04 No

Zimbabwe Group Group 2.00 1.72 2.87 6.58 Yes

Countries in the group in GEF4 148.60 147.10

Total (M$) 900.00 901.40 1,088 968 324 2,380

Eligible countries 144 144 143

Floor countries 70 45 8

Cap countries 1 0 0

Number of flexible countries 63

Note: Since Cape verde and Jordan each has an allocation of $7 million, the total allocations of the flexible countries in BD is 10.1% over all the resources allocated in BD.


The Global Environment Facility (GEF) unites 178 member governments — in partnership with international institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector — to address global environmental issues. An independent financial organization, the GEF provides grants to developing countries and countries with economies in transition for projects related to biodiversity, climate change, international waters, land degradation, the ozone layer, and persistent organic pollutants. These projects benefit the global environment, linking local, national, and global environmental challenges, and promoting sustainable livelihoods.

Established in 1991, the GEF is today the largest funder of projects to improve the global environment. The GEF has allocated $9 billion, supplemented by more than $40 billion in cofinancing, for more than 2,600 projects in more than 165 developing countries and countries with economies in transition. Through its Small Grants Programme (SGP), the GEF has also made more than 12,000 small grants directly to nongovernmental and community organizations.

The GEF partnership includes 10 agencies: the uN Development Programme; the uN Environment Programme; the World Bank; the uN Food and Agriculture Organization; the uN Industrial Development Organization; the African Development Bank; the Asian Development Bank; the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development; the Inter-American Development Bank; and the International Fund for Agricultural Development. The Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel provides technical and scientific advice on the GEF’s policies and projects.

ABOUT THE GEF

Production Date: September 2010Design: Patricia hord.Graphik DesignPrinter: Professional Graphics Printing

www.theGEF.org

Prin

ted

on

Envi

ronm

enta

lly F

riend

ly P

aper

system for transparent allocation of resources (star)

Documents

gef gef

star gef

gef change

gef secretariat

gef agencies

gef focal areas

star different

gef benefits index gbi