Talk:Global Environment Facility

Untitled, May 2004
Editor at IP 81.* seems to have a grudge against the World Bank, IMF and, by factually incorrect extension, the GEF -- as presented in this article. Hence the article as of 2004-05-06 does not reflect a NPOV. The version which pre-dates this person's edit of 2003-12-08 DOES appear to reflect a NPOV. I vote to revert! (Unsigned)

Untitled, November 2004
The entirely uncritical description of the GEF as it originally appeared was almost certainly posted by someone deeply supportive of, or most likely paid by, the institution itself. Given widespread international ignorance and/or unease about the GEF, the original version was in no sense neutral - if such a position is even possible about an organisation with instructions to conserve global nature from inside the offices of one of nature's biggest despoilers.

I vote to maintain the additions, and if possible to add more diverse perspectives - ideally procuring them from outside 'the world of books and computers' (as a forest dweller of my aquaintance put it) i.e. from where real world environmental action, not to mention destruction, takes place. Thanks. (Unsigned)

Untitled, January 2005
The Global Environment Facility is NOT run from within the World Bank -- it is an organizationally distinct entity, as much as the UN is NOT "run from within the United States" by virtue of having its headquarters located in the US. The GEF is an organizationally separate entity from the World Bank, which is one (of many) of its partners. Hence, NPOV removed by the politically-charged editor resulted in factual inconsistencies. That the commentor above admits that the current version (as this author suspects that the above commentor had revised it circa 2003-12-08) is no longer an "entirely uncritical description of the GEF" is clearly an admission that subsequent updates have resulted in modification of NPOV. Author of subsequent edits clearly had an [understandable] axe to grind regarding the paltry amount of global funding going towards global environmental protection. While this stance is admirable, distorting facts in order to make one's case via what is supposed to be a NPOV article on a subject is NOT admirable. It is, in fact, ignorant vandalism. Article should revert to previous (pre- 2003-12-08) version.

The original version was indeed adapted from the GEF's own Web site. It was not, however, an opinion piece. The current version IS an opinion piece with clearly charged language which is not appropriate for a NPOV article. Take the opinion piece to the New York Times, leave Wikipedia as a concensus-based NPOV reference. Please revert. (Unsigned)

Untitled, May 2005
"The Global Environment Facility is NOT run from within the World Bank"

Hmmm. Tricky one, this. GEF has always had to be presented to the world as an entity separate from the World Bank, because so many people in the global South and social/environmental justice movements know exactly what the World Bank is about, and will therefore never trust a GEF that is closely connected with it. However, at the same time, GEF would never have received the level of political support and funding it has from Western governments if it were not under the aegis of the World Bank, thus persuading the rich countries' treasuries that any money they give for global green aid will be managed 'responsibly' through the influence of an institution they can control.

In which context, the facts are as follows.

The GEF's secretariat is physically based inside the offices of the World Bank. GEF secretariat staff are paid by the World Bank (at Bank standard, very lucrative, rates). They even have World Bank e-mail addresses.

However, it might still be reasonable to claim that

"The GEF is an organizationally separate entity from the World Bank"

IF the GEF Council was not legally situated within the Bretton Woods framework.

But then, if it were a legally separate and independent, democratically controlled body, the GEF might not have won so many of its battles with UN bodies (for example the Convention on Biological Diversity) over what exactly should, and should not, be funded with GEF cash for global environmental protection. Because as a World Bank lawyer told me, it is precisely because the GEF is legally part of the Bretton Woods system (est. 1944) that it cannot effectively be challenged by an agency legally hosted within the United Nations system (established after the second world war). And this is what ensured that the GEF got the 'little' money it has (actually billions), rather than UNEP or any other, UN based global institution for international environmental conservation.

"Author of subsequent edits clearly had an [understandable] axe to grind regarding the paltry amount of global funding going towards global environmental protection."

Not really. It may be a common complaint of the big NGOs who seek money and influence through the GEF, but I am not from that community, and (perhaps as a result) I don't think throwing money at problems like mass poverty, environmental degradation etc will do much to solve the situation until or unless their root causes - greed, structural inequality, cultivated ignorance etc - are tackled.

Maybe THIS is an opinion of mine, reflecting a particular political perspective. But if so, isn't it also a matter of opinion whether the GEF website can present anything like a neutral point of view when it is written and created by people whose current livelihood is dependent on the survival of the GEF...??? (Unsigned)

Untitled, October 2005
1: Initially, let me declare an interest in the issues discussed; I work in the environment ministry of a donor country, I have taken part in most negotiations of GEFs statutes and replenishments as well as meetings of the GEF council (its governing body) since its inception - although not as a member of the council. Contrary to the implication of one of the comments above, I do not think that professional familiarity with an issue is disqualifying.

2. My impression of the Wikipedia article is that it does not reflect fairly what the GEF is and does. Below are some points to support that view.


 * The GEF is not governed under World bank rules where voting power follows from share of bank capital. If a vote is required, a double, qualified majority (60%) of both donors shares and countries is required.


 * The GEF does not only contribute to developing countries as defined by OECD-DAC -whether they are so-called DCs or not is not quite so interesting as which countries actually occur on the list.

All countries eligible for World Bank loans or UNDP support may receive GEF funds. This is important because it includes Russia and eastern European countries, which for instance are excluded from the provisions of the Montreal protocol on Oxone depleting substances.


 * The GEF does not simply pay out for projects with global environmental benefits. It is mandated to cover the "agreed incremental costs" which means that it may cover some or all costs incurred in expanding a project with local and national benefits so that it provides more global benefits. For example if a country wishes to build a coal fired power station GEF could cover some or all of the extra costs of running an energy efficiency programme or say solar energy systems that would yield the same amount of energy. GEF is not, however, a development aid fund and cannot cover the basic costs. These will have to be covered by the country itself and any donor or agency aid available.


 * GEF projects are not initiated by GEF council, they have to be transmitted through the Government of the countries that wish to have the projects and are carried out by the GEF executing and implementing agencies, including the World Bank, UNDP and UNEP as well as the African Development Bank and many others, including NGOs.


 * The global conventions provide their priorities as guidance to GEF, they are not mandated to have a say in project choice, but it the same governments that have seats in the COPs and the GEF. Some of the friction experienced may stem from less than ideal internal coordination in countries, some from the fact that governments do not agree with each other.


 * As opposed to many other international organizations, all documents for council meeting are openly available on the GEF website at the same time that council members receive them.

3. The recent independent reviews of GEF provide a thorough description of the difficulties of implementing concepts such as "global environmental benefits" and "incremental costs". It is a rich vein of informed criticism as well as positive suggestions for change -which is currently being considered by all parties. I propose that the Wikipedia article be structured so that it gives a fair view of the "mechanics" of GEF, and that different views on how it works and should work be set out separately.

paul hofseth

Untitled, February 2005
This quantity of information provided on this page seems to have been slashed since last time I looked; I wonder why? Is it to do with the fear of japes and libel claims that now challenges wikipedia? At least the short descriptions now provided do seem reasonably balanced, and presumably anyone interested can follow the links to more info....

zoe young

Untitled, July 2008
Looking again, the page seems to have reverted to resembling a page fr0m the GEF's own website... full of what it says it is doing, nothing on what is is actually doing, critical perspectives etc. Given that this Facility spends Billions of dollars of taxpayers' money supposedly to 'save the global environment' with very little to show for it, surely a vaguely critical and 'objective' perspective would be reasonable? Would therefore vote to revert to previous version.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.189.141 (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Untitled, August 2008
Once more the GEF's staff have been hard at work here, with the latest text even more self-serving than before..... is wikipedia really meant to serve just an extension of their PR materials? Damn I wish someone paid me to add a little note of reality.. anyone else interested in this little struggle? come on in, the water's tepid! 86.129.96.148 (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Some suggestions to move forward with this article
The controversial debate on this discussion page is quite rich, and I wonder how the article could be improved based on some of the previously posted comments. Here are some suggestions on the article and on the framework of how to discuss the article.

About the article itself


 * The article lacks references, except one. References should be added after each paragraph.
 * As pointed out above, the article indeed reads as if it was written by staff of the GEF secreteriat, repeating information already on the GEF website. Some of the edits do come from User:GEFSec. So it least these edits are not done anonymously. However, Username policy says the following:"Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended, and depending on the circumstances may be seen as a problem. Similarly, editing with a possible conflict of interest, such as editing an article about your employer, is not disallowed, but anyone wishing to do so is advised to read the Business' FAQ."
 * The article so far lacks examples of concrete projects financed by GEF and specific benefits provided by these projects, as pointed out above. It should not be too difficult to add those, and they would greatly enhance the article.
 * The article mentions an independent GEF evaluation office. The discussion page mentions independent reviews of GEF. It would be very useful to include a summary of both evaluations and the independent reviews in the article. The web page of the evaluation office is an obvious starting point:http://www.gefweb.org/gefevaluation.aspx?id=148
 * It would be useful to have a separate section on criticism of GEF, if there has been criticism of the GEF from credible sources. A quick web search did not yield much of substance, but I may be proven wrong.
 * There are some repetitions, e.g. on the GEF executing agencies which are listed both under structure and under history.
 * The various conventions listed in the article should be converted to internal links.
 * There seem to be a few factual mistakes in the article. For example, the Rio Earth Summit took place in 1992, not in 1994.
 * As the article stands now, I believe it should be tagged as lacking references, and perhaps also for not having a neutral point of view. Views from others on this would be appreciated.

About how to discuss the article


 * It would be useful if contributors to the discussion would register themselves as individuals and discontinue the use of the corporate user account
 * It would be good to sign contributions, as it is customary on Wikipedia
 * The early comments (apparently from 2005) are detailed and there are reactions to comments. Recent comments remain unanswered. It is always nice to see reactions to comments.--Mschiffler (talk) 04:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Untitled, May 2011
GEFSec is just trying to describe what the GEF does. As far as I know an encyclopedia should provide only true information without judgment. The information provided by GEFSec is based on documents and publicly available data. Criticism should be supported with examples and not by modifying the text in a malicious way. (GEFSec (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC))