Abstract
The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is one of the most significant and reliable financial mechanisms for a number of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs); the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification; and the Minamata Convention on Mercury.
Funding from the Facility is channelled to recipient countries through 18 “GEF Agencies”: the UN Development Programme (UNDP); the UN Environment Programme (UNEP); the World Bank; the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN; 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; the International Fund for Agricultural Development; World Wildlife Fund US; Conservation International; the International Union for Conservation of Nature; the Development Bank of Southern Africa; the Brazilian Biodiversity Fund; the Chinese Foreign Economic Cooperation Office; the Development Bank of Latin America; and the West African Development Bank. Working through these Agencies, the GEF has provided close to US$ 20 billion in grants and mobilised an additional US$ 107 billion in co-financing for more than 4,700 projects in 170 countries.
The GEF is funded by donor nations, which commit money every four years through a process called the GEF replenishment. The GEF organisational structure includes an Assembly that meets every four years; a Council that meets twice a year; a Secretariat; the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP); and the Independent Evaluation Office (IEO). The GEF also administers the Council for the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) and the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF).
The Council, the GEF’s main decision-making body, develops, adopts and evaluates the operational policies and programmes for GEF-financed activities. It also reviews and approves the work programme (projects submitted for approval), making decisions by consensus. The Council, which meets twice a year, is composed of 32 Members appointed by constituencies of GEF member countries (14 from developed countries, 16 from developing countries and 2 from economies in transition). 1
The 57th meeting of the GEF Council convened in Washington DC, US, from 17– 19 December 2019, at World Bank Headquarters. Representatives of governments, international organisations and civil society organisations (CSOs) attended the meeting. Naoko Ishii, GEF CEO and Chairperson, opened the meeting, highlighting the GEF’s role in navigating the path to achieving transformational change. In addition to its main sessions, in which it adopted a workplan, the Council re-convened as the 27th meeting of the LDCF/SCCF Council; engaged in consultations with CSOs; 2 and hosted the Fifth Informal Dialogue with Secretariats of the Multilateral Environmental Agreements.
This report describes the highlights of the 57th meeting of the GEF Council and the 27th meeting of the LDCF/SCCF Council. 3
Monitoring and Evaluation
2019 Report
The 2019 GEF Monitoring Report 4 was welcomed, particularly with regard to its improved format, incorporating feedback from the Council’s June 2019 meeting. Some members suggested areas for improvement, such as using “actual result” indicators, providing more detailed data on disbursement rates. The Secretariat explained that the Monitoring Report relies heavily on data provided by the Agencies; and noted that “actual result” indicators will be presented at the December 2020 Council meeting, once most projects have been fully completed and results have been achieved.
Several Council members commented, noting the analysis of the Small Grants Programme (SGP); the SGP’s valuable contribution and mandate; and appreciation for the SGP’s work with CSOs and local communities to improve their livelihoods. The Council asked for further information on financial management and resource distribution in line with SGP reporting requirements, as set out in the GEF Policy on Monitoring (GEF/C.56/03/Rev.01).
Some members sought clarification on the low performance ratings of certain focal areas and in certain countries; and the variance between disbursement rates of implementing Agencies. The GEF Secretariat commented that the performance rating data provided only a “snapshot” of the projects and noted the complexity of this issue.
Members also sought clarification on the backlog of financial project closures. UNDP reported on its efforts to address the backlog, bringing the number of projects that had achieved financial closure down to 24. Some Council members called for action to reduce the number of projects that have yet to reach financial closure after submitting terminal evaluations. They welcomed the Secretariat’s commitment to work with agencies to this end. The Council requested the Secretariat to expedite action on financial closure and to report back to its 58th meeting.
Minimum Fiduciary Standards
The GEF Secretariat proposed an updated policy on minimum fiduciary standards, introducing new standards for implementing Agencies, including requirements to: exercise oversight of executing entities; prevent and combat fraud; reinforce standards on procurement, conduct and investigation; and inform the Council of cases of potential non-compliance.
Council members welcomed the updated Policy and expressed appreciation for the consultative process used during preparation. All Council members underscored the importance of strong fiduciary standards for effective implementation of GEF projects and maintenance of the GEF Partnership’s strong reputation.
Several members appreciated the provisions in the proposed Policy requiring careful due diligence and oversight of Executing Agencies by GEF Partner Agencies. Others pointed to increasing costs of project preparation to ensure compliance with standards, and the disproportionality of these costs to the size of many small projects.
In the aftermath of recent allegations of potential misuse of GEF funds associated with UNDP as a GEF implementing Agency, Council members suggested that in case of a potential misuse of funds, the Council be alerted fully, promptly and continuously and decision-making procedures be followed. The Secretariat explained that minimum fiduciary standards are intended to serve as principles to assess a Partner Agency’s policies and procedures, and that the GEF operates on the basis that the Partner Agencies use their own policies and procedures with respect to the use of GEF funds, including for misuse of funds. Thus, it would be beyond the Council’s mission to step into the Agency’s governance framework, setting operational, administrative and staff rules.
The Secretariat made adjustments to the policy document, based on discussions during the 57th Council meeting, suggesting that GEF Partner Agencies implement, not just have in place, policies, procedures and legal arrangements to comply with the Minimum Fiduciary Standards; include information on co-financing in final financial reports upon project completion; and keep the Council informed of developments in cases concerning possible non-compliance.
The Council adopted a decision with immediate effect, approving the “Updated Policy on Minimum Fiduciary Standards”. The decision requested each GEF Partner Agency, within nine months of the Policy approval, to conduct a self-assessment; present a report on compliance to the GEF Secretariat; provide a signed certification of compliance; and if necessary, present time-bound action plans to remedy any shortfall. The decision also requested the GEF Secretariat to consolidate GEF Partner Agency reports as a decision for submission to the Council at its meeting in December 2020; and to review the GEF Minimum Fiduciary Standards, as needed.
GEF Agencies’ Compliance with Minimum Standards
The GEF Secretariat introduced a Report on the Assessment of GEF Agencies’ Compliance with Minimum Standards in the Policies on Environmental and Social Safeguards, Gender Equality, and Stakeholder Engagement. 5 The report presents the compliance gaps found in 14 agencies and presents time-bound plans of action to address them. The findings of the report had been validated through an iterative process, including bilateral consultations and discussions between the 18 GEF Partner Agencies, expert reviewers and the Secretariat.
The GEF Secretariat noted that most Agencies have comprehensive policies, processes and mechanisms for addressing environmental and social risks and impacts in project design and implementation. Compliance gaps are usually identified when Agencies have not yet adjusted to new requirements in the GEF Policy on Environmental and Social Safeguards, on such issues as climate and disaster risks; disability inclusion; disadvantaged or vulnerable individuals or groups; adverse gender-related impacts, including gender-based violence and sexual exploitation and abuse; and free prior informed consent for indigenous peoples.
The Secretariat also observed that some Agencies do not currently have policies addressing all aspects of the GEF’s two new minimum standards on labour and working conditions, and on community health, safety and security. However, almost all were found to be fully compliant with the minimum standards on gender equality and stakeholder engagement. The Secretariat recommended that the Council allow the Agencies to continue sourcing GEF funding while working through their compliance plans, with an updated assessment to be presented at the Council’s 59th meeting.
The Council approved the plans of action submitted by Agencies to achieve full compliance and decided that these Agencies may continue to seek GEF financing while they implement time-bound plans of action. In addition, the Council requested that: (a) each Agency found not to be in full compliance with the minimum standards, provide updates to the Secretariat, before every Council meeting, on the progress in implementing their plans of action, according to the timelines set out in those plans; and (b) the Secretariat report to the Council on progress, based on a combination of consultation with the Agencies, updates provided by them and further expert assessment. The Secretariat will notify the Council when Agencies meet their commitments to achieve compliance.
Independent Evaluation Office
The IEO presented to the Council the 2019 Semi-Annual Evaluation Report which included an update on the Work Program; a presentation of the progress made towards the IEO’s seventh Overall Performance Study to be conducted in preparation for GEF-8; a Knowledge Management Needs Assessment survey carried out by IEO; and an update on the peer review being carried out by the IEO. The IEO also presented a methodological approach to post-completion evaluations and a case study on the Yellow Sea. During ensuing discussions, Council members welcomed the presentation, expressed support for the IEO’s activities and acknowledged the progress achieved in evaluation practices.
The Strategic Country Cluster Evaluation of the Small Island Developing States
The IEO presented its SIDS evaluation, which assesses the relevance, performance and sustainability of GEF-supported interventions, drawing attention to the specific environmental and socio-economic common challenges faced by SIDS, including sea-level rise; coastal and coral reef degradation; threats to marine resources and biodiversity; vulnerability to natural disasters; and difficulty in mobilising financial resources. The evaluation, which was based on 10 country visits, reviewed 286 projects, and found evidence of overall effective GEF project implementation in SIDS. The IEO highlighted the positive environmental, socio-economic and institutional outcomes in at least 75 percent of projects, but noted that the GEF’s performance in SIDS was lower than in the overall GEF portfolio. The IEO recommended diversifying the Agencies working in SIDS, since 86 percent of the projects were implemented by only three Agencies. Concerning sustainability, the IEO reported that SIDS projects were rated as less likely to be sustainable than the overall GEF portfolio, adding that regional projects perform significantly better on outcomes and sustainability. The IEO also noted that integrated thematic approaches were successful and that the GEF has been giving increased attention to cross-cutting issues such as gender, resilience, and private sector engagement.
Council members representing constituencies including SIDS applauded the overall positive findings of the evaluation, reaffirming the benefits of the partnership between SIDS and the GEF, but expressed concern regarding the lower rates on outcomes and sustainability.
The Council endorsed the recommendations of the IEO and called for more thought about how to operationalise them while taking into account the heterogeneity among SIDS.
A Methodological Approach for Post-completion Verification
The IEO presented a new post-completion verification methodology for measuring the durability of a project’s environmental and development impacts. It suggested that the methodology should be implemented in projects completed at least four years earlier; highlighted the methodology’s use of geospatial analysis of remote-sensing images in combination with traditional survey methodologies; noted that a template was produced and used on eight projects undertaken in the Yellow Sea region; and added that this template would be used on up to 25 new post-completion evaluations.
The proposed post-completion evaluation methodology was very well received by Council members. Members sought clarifications on the budget required to carry out this work. Additional questions focused on limitations of the methodology, selection criteria and the extent to which these evaluations could be used. Council members also asked who would be carrying out the post-completion work – the IEO or the Agencies – and how the results would be reported.
The Council expressed support for the continued use of remote sensing and GIS in the proposed methodology, but noted the importance of including qualitative criteria – not measurable by remote sensing – to assess whether projects had differentiated impacts on women, indigenous peoples and local communities, and to ensure that beneficiary feedback is reflected.
The IEO clarified its preference to use the term “post-completion evaluation” instead of “verification”, since the planned activities included a broad objective assessment rather than validation of terminal evaluation findings. In response to concerns about the budget required, the IEO assured the Council that post-completion evaluations would not incur additional costs, because they would be carried out as part of field work already covered by approved budget allocations.
After receiving assurances from the IEO that points raised would be addressed, the Council endorsed the application of the methodology without further comment.
Towards Greater Durability of GEF Investments
The report entitled “Towards Greater Durability of GEF Investments”, presented by CEO Ishii, provides a summary of key factors that influence the sustainability of GEF projects and programmes, and describes how such factors are taken into account and may be strengthened in current GEF operations. The STAP and the Secretariat worked together to come up with a series of actionable design and implementation elements on durability, which were presented in the report and centred around four themes: theory of change, multi-stakeholder processes, stakeholder involvement and adaptive learning.
Several Council members expressed interest in the practical application of these elements in the projects. Others noted that the participation of the private sector was very relevant to durability. Some highlighted issues that in their view should receive greater attention in building durability into projects and programmes, including calls for solid exit strategies and the involvement of CSOs as well as operational focal points in durability monitoring and discussions. Other points mentioned included calls to build climate resilience into projects and programmes, incorporating durability assessments into project mid-term and closure evaluations, and regularly reporting to the Council on the sustainability of completed projects.
The Secretariat noted that durability can be assessed several years after the project has ended, but following the execution closely and learning from how the project evolves is also key to attaining durability. The Secretariat promised to promote a fast transition towards building durability into the design of projects. CEO Ishii assured the Council that the Secretariat is already fully engaging STAP and the Agencies, as well as several operational focal points on durability; and suggested that the durability issue be part of the discussions on GEF-8 replenishment. The Council welcomed the analysis carried out by the Secretariat and agreed with the conclusions and next steps proposed.
Private Sector Engagement
Introducing the GEF’s Private Sector Engagement Strategy, CEO Ishii recalled the agreement achieved during GEF-7 replenishment to involve all stakeholders, including the private sector, in transforming economic systems; the creation of the Private Sector Advisory Group, approved at the 54th meeting of the Council; and the mandate given to the Secretariat to develop a private sector engagement strategy.
The GEF Secretariat presented the proposed Strategy, highlighting its two pillars – the use of blended finance; and mobilisation of the private sector as an agent for market transformation. The Secretariat highlighted three core elements: working strategically with multi-stakeholder platforms to achieve scale and impact; supporting multiple private sector entry points throughout the GEF Partnership; and “crowding in” the private sector by creating the right environment and tools for private sector engagement.
In ensuing discussion, Council members welcomed the strategy and expressed support for its approach, but at the same time called for further clarification and greater detail on, inter alia, indicators, working modalities, timelines, and levels and types of private sector engagement. Members called for discussion about issues such as innovation, technology transfer, additionality, involvement of countries and Agencies, enabling environments, and past elements that have hindered private sector involvement with the GEF. They also requested that a detailed implementation plan be prepared for consideration at the next Council meeting.
The Council requested the Secretariat to review the strategy proposed, incorporating feedback from the discussions held. In particular, it asked that such a review draw on broader consultations and a revised version be presented for the 58th meeting of the Council. The Secretariat must prepare an implementation plan for consideration by the Council no later than its 59th meeting. The Council also invited the Private Sector Advisory Group to continue until the end of the GEF-7 replenishment cycle.
Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel
The Chair of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) presented his Report, 6 which outlined STAP’s work on Impact Programs, climate risk assessment and durability; and provided an overview of the scientific findings reflected inter alia in recent Special Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on land, and oceans and the cryosphere, and the UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2019.
The report also described STAP criteria to promote building innovation, integration and transformation into all Impact Programs, including a theory of change and multi-stakeholder processes; highlighted the potential of nature-based solutions offering great co-benefits at lower cost; encouraged the use of remote sensing to improve efficiency and accuracy; welcomed the improved quality of accepted Project Identification Forms; and called for improvements in the provision of information related to climate risks.
For GEF-8, STAP recommended, inter alia, looking at three areas: the multiple benefits that can be achieved through sound management of chemicals and waste; biodiversity mainstreaming in light of new science and evidence; and synergy between climate change adaptation and biodiversity.
Council members made general comments on the topics raised by the report, calling for integration of the STAP’s findings into the GEF’s projects and programmes. They urged STAP to incorporate more social science perspectives into its work and expressed their recognition and their high appreciation of the work of the STAP.
Work Programmes
Work Program for GEF Trust Fund
The GEF Secretariat introduced a Work Program, requiring US$ 539.2 million from the GEF Trust Fund and US$ 49.3 million in associated Agency fees. The Secretariat pointed out that the total of US$ 588.5 million represents 15.1 percent of the entire GEF-7 replenishment, and listed a number of “firsts” and other achievements represented in the Work Program, including: the first three “non-grant instruments” (NGIs or blended-finance projects); the first dedicated GEF-funded initiative that will focus entirely on indigenous peoples; and 25 LDCs and 24 SIDS as beneficiaries. The Secretariat highlighted that the Work Program is expected to largely fulfil GEF-7 targets on marine protected areas and land restoration, and make a substantial contribution towards GEF-7 targets on emissions of greenhouse gases and POPs.
The Work Program contains 48 projects under five programmes: the Sustainable Cities Impact Program; the impact program on Food Systems, Land Use and Restoration; the GEF-7 Africa Minigrids Program; the Global Cleantech Innovation Program; and the programme on Implementing Sustainable Low and Non-Chemical Development in SIDS.
Stand-alone full-sized projects include 11 projects on biodiversity; six on climate change mitigation; two on land degradation; three on chemicals and waste; and four on international waters. The Work Program also includes 11 multi-focal area projects; four multi-trust fund projects; three SGP projects; and a Non-expedited Enabling Activity in Indonesia on the fourth national communication and fourth biennial update report to the UNFCCC.
The three proposed projects using NGIs (private partnership finance) are: The Food Securities Fund; A Circular Economy Regional Programme Initiative in the Western Balkans and Turkey; and Regional Agtech for Inclusion and Sustainability in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Council members supported the Work Program, expressing their appreciation for the level of co-financing; the extent of private sector participation; and its geographical balance and broad agency participation. Members called for greater focus on LDCs and suggested that GEF projects include assistance to generate local expertise and technical analysis infrastructure; build on lessons learned from related projects; and measure actual benefits for women.
Some members expressed concern that projects including middle-income countries are ineligible for official development assistance. Others raised questions regarding the proposed NGIs. In response to these questions, the Secretariat clarified that there will be more calls for such proposals until the allocated resources are exhausted, with the next call slated for January 2020. Among the points made on the NGI approach, it was noted, for example, that reflows from blended-finance projects are returned to the Trust Fund for repurposing; that partners in the three currently proposed projects all have substantial capacity for screening project risks; that an advisory group of experienced investment advisors is assisting partners on a pro bono basis; and that the Secretariat will ensure that operational focal points are informed about NGI projects at the design stage.
Council Members adopted the Work Program as presented, subject to comments made during the Council meeting and additional comments that may be submitted in writing to the Secretariat by 16 January 2020.
LDCF/SCCF Work Programme
The GEF Council Members, convening as the 27th meeting of the LDCF/SCCF Council, adopted an LDCF Work Program calling for a total of US$ 59.95 million for nine projects to address urgent and immediate climate change adaptation priorities. Seven of the nine LDCs involved are accessing the LDCF for the first time in the GEF-7 period and four projects are multi-trust fund projects combining resources from the LDCF with the GEF Trust Fund.
The Work Program includes nine projects: Reducing vulnerability and increasing resilience to climate change through promoting innovation, transfer and large-scale deployment of adaptation-oriented technologies in priority agriculture value chains and creating jobs in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; Increased resilience and adaptive capacity of the most vulnerable communities to climate change in forested Guinea; Climate-resilient and sustainable capture fisheries, aquaculture development and watershed management in Malawi; Resilient, productive and sustainable landscape in Mali’s Kayes Region; Promoting climate-resilient livelihoods in rice farming communities in the lower Ayeyarwady and Sittaung River Basins in Myanmar (RICE-Adapt); Watershed approaches for climate resilience in agro-pastoral landscapes in South Sudan; Building resilience through sustainable land management and climate change adaptation in Dodoma, Tanzania; Adaptation to climate change in the coastal zone in Vanuatu – Phase II (VCAP II); Resilience of pastoral and farming communities to climate change in north Darfur, Sudan.
The Secretariat reported expected benefits from the projects proposed, noting also that all nine responded to the ambition and requirements of the GEF Policy on Gender Equality and Gender Implementation Strategy. The report noted that the Malawi, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Myanmar projects are also coordinated with the Green Climate Fund.
The Council approved the Work Program as proposed, subject to comments made during the Council meeting and additional comments that may be submitted in writing to the Secretariat by 16 January 2020.
Convention Secretariats and Other International Institutions
A report was introduced and several presentations were made “on the Relations with the Conventions and Other International Institutions”. In the margins of the meeting, the GEF also held the Fifth Informal Dialogue with Secretariats of the Multilateral Environmental Agreements. The event discussed the “2020 super year”, highlighting the challenges and opportunities of creating a coherent political momentum across MEAs to spur unprecedented collective action to address the climate, biodiversity and sustainable development crises. 7
The Executive Secretary of the Minamata Convention on Mercury thanked the GEF for promoting activities on mercury assessment; supporting artisanal and small-scale gold mining action plans; funding projects helping to reduce mercury emissions; and helping in appraising projects proposed for other funding.
The Executive Secretary of the CBD reported on joint activities with the GEF Secretariat including regional consultations and global working group meetings in preparation for a post-2020 biodiversity framework; called for joint CBD-GEF consideration of longer timelines for their work, including work undertaken to achieve the 2030 SDGs and promote a 2050 “vision of living in harmony with nature”; noted that the CBD and GEF Secretariats are implementing COP-13-approved recommendations for integrative efforts; and urged greater communication and outreach efforts.
The Co-chair of the Open-ended Intersessional Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework provided an update on the intersessional process towards the upcoming CBD Conference of the Parties; provided details about progress on developing the post-2020 framework; noted that its success will depend on engaging new actors from all parts of society; and highlighted the critical need for financial means to achieve its new ambitions.
The Secretariat of the Montreal Protocol presented its on-going work in collaboration with the GEF Secretariat; and attributed the universal implementation of the Montreal Protocol in part to predictable GEF funding.
Council members expressed appreciation for the efforts made by the GEF to enhance collaboration and synergy with the conventions and relevant international institutions. They highlighted the need for the GEF to maintain strong links with the conventions; and to heed their guidance. The Council Members also expressed their on-going commitment to supporting countries in transition to the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework in this context. Some requested that the Secretariat streamline support for the new reporting modalities and transparency regime under the UNFCCC Paris Agreement and provide continued support for the Capacity-Building Initiative for Transparency. Some sought additional information on collaboration with the Stockholm Convention on plastic marine litter, while others called for more focus on the Stockholm-Convention-related activities.
The GEF Secretariat informed the Council about continuing informal discussions between the GEF and key partners on streamlining reporting. It also discussed its on-going exploration of synergies between the GEF and the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, two of which do not receive GEF financing. The Secretariat also discussed the provision of GEF support to the UN Forum on Forests through the Collaborative Partnership on Forests.
Consultations with Civil Society
The GEF Secretariat proposed two topics to be addressed in subsequent Council meetings for consideration: “The Application of Traditional Knowledge by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, Stewards of the Global Environment”, to be discussed at the 58th Council meeting in June 2020; and “Enhancing Climate Resilience and the Role of Civil Society, Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples”, to be discussed at the 59th Council meeting in December 2020.
Several Council members supported the two topics; emphasised their importance in enhancing the sustainability of GEF projects; recognised the value of the GEF consultations with civil society; and requested the Secretariat to organise the agenda in such a way as to minimise parallel competing events to facilitate the attendance of Council members. Some Members urged stronger involvement of the STAP to strengthen the scientific backing for traditional knowledge; and to feed the resulting information back into the GEF’s operations.
The CSO Network supported the choice of topics selected and invited all Council members to participate more actively and to engage private-sector and other high-level public-sector participants in the consultations.
The Council Members approved the topics proposed as mentioned above.
Dates of Future Meetings
The Council agreed that its 62nd meeting would convene back-to-back with the next GEF Assembly and set the date for its 63rd: 6– 8 December 2022.
Footnotes
The ENB Summary report of the meeting is available at https://enb.iisd.org/download/pdf/sd/enbplus192num23e.pdf. The Chairs’ Joint Summary is available at https://www.thegef.org/council-meeting-documents/joint-summary-chairs-78. Highlights of the Council’s Discussions are available at https://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/council-meeting-documents/EN_GEF.C.57_Highlights.pdf. The meeting documents, including all that are cited in this article, are available at 
.
GEF Monitoring Report, 2019, UN Doc symbol GEF/C.57/03.
Report on the Assessment of Agencies’ Compliance with Minimum Standards in the GEF Policies on: Environmental and Social Safeguards; Gender Equality; and Stakeholder Engagement. UN Doc symbol GEF/C.57/05.
Report of the Chairperson of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel. UN Doc symbol GEF/STAP/C.57/Inf.01.
The Summary Report of the MEAs Dialogue is available at https://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/events/57th% 20Council% 20-% 20MEA% 20dialogue% 20report_FINAL.pdf. For details of the Dialogue with MEA Secretariats and GEF, see .