Publication Name

•

GA should seek ways to work increasingly on larger programmes (example “Shelf Programme”)

rather than contributing small components to UNEP’s PoW;

•

There is a need to clarify with UNEP GA’s branding possibilities (name, logo, trademark

ownership on GA products, such as “Vital Graphics”).

Another important (field of) lessons learned are our experiences with UNEP’s complex processes of

distributing the work on the PoW. Due to the long planning processes within UNEP, it has proven difficult

to plan GA’s contributions to UNEP in a timely manner for cross-referencing purposes. The recent

planning processes at UNEP have taken a long time and have undergone numerous changes which have

not always been easy to understand and follow. Although we are aware of the special transition phase

that UNEP is presently involved in for the implementation of their new working structure and strategy,

there are some general lessons for GA:

•

The advantages of GA’s more independent status by not being directly part of UNEP should be

more clearly assessed with appropriate boundaries properly defined. A better understanding of

where and when we should be involved in detailed planning processes and where and when we

need to adhere to special rules and procedures needs to be determined.

•

For future Framework Agreements with MoFA, planning should be done in broader frames (e.g.

referring to the agreed focus areas of GA) rather than on the basis of specific projects.

•

Work under the Framework Agreement should include the flexibility for taking in ad hoc tasks

which UNEP wants GA to carry out in relation to unexpected political needs (e.g. “Rapid

Assessment Reports”).

•

Working fields for GA should be agreed upon and financially secured on longer term as within a

biennium in order to become a more stable and reliable partner for UNEP.

A more general issue, which came up during several meetings with UNEP colleagues is that there is not a

clear understanding of how the two Framework Agreements (the one with UNEP and the one with GA) of

MoFA relate to each other. In particular, in the context of UNEP developing a comprehensive marine

strategy and work portfolio (which Norway has indicated it expects GA to implement), colleagues in

UNEP-DEPI did not know whether this was meant to be an element of UNEP’s Framework Agreement

with Norway. It is thus recommended that the cross-referencing of the two agreements should, in the

future, be made clearer and better communicated within UNEP.