Un article consacré aux enjeux stratégiques de la reconstitution du Fonds pour l'environnement mondial (FEM). Dans un contexte de recomposition de l’architecture financière environnementale internationale, les États membres du FEM sont actuellement en discussion pour la sixième reconstitution du Fonds (FEM 6), pour la période du 1er juillet 2014 au 30 juin 2018.

Points clés [en anglais] :


The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is the largest fund dedicated to financing the protection of the global environment. Over the last 20 years it has enabled the distribution of more than $11.5 billion to developing countries, for more than 3,000 projects. Every four years, the GEF Trust Fund must be replenished. Member States are currently involved in discussions for the sixth replenishment of the Facility (GEF-6), for the period from 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2018. As the international financial architecture dedicated to the environment is marked both by the renewal of the sustainable development agenda and the fragmentation and multiplication of International funds for climate change, the challenge for the GEF is therefore to assert its specific value.


The main innovation contained within the GEF’s proposed programming directions for the GEF-6 is the suggestion to implement "signature programs"—both at the global and regional scales—designed to tackle the main drivers of the degradation of the global environment through approaches that are transversal to several environmental objectives and to go beyond the country-based approach. Simultaneously, cross-cutting orientations have been defined in view of a "strategic positioning": diversification of financing methods; adjustment of the system for transparent allocation of resources; strengthening of the results-driven management system and of the knowledge management system; strengthening of links with the private sector; and inclusion of gender issues.


The implementation of those strategic shifts raises questions as to the GEF’s logic of intervention. How can the right balance be found between an increased strategic programming capacity in order to tackle the different drivers of environmental degradation and the need for country ownership, as the essential role of recipient countries in taking ownership of the resources at their disposal has been reaffirmed? Can bottom-up and top-down approaches be compatible? And, above all, in the light of the transformation of development models towards systemic changes, can the rationale of incremental, additional costs continue to be the backbone of the GEF’s interventions?

Télécharger la publication

PDF - 1.5 Mo

18 pages