Fourth Overall Performance Study

Interim ReportJune 25, 2009

Interim report: overview The GEF in a changing world The catalytic nature of the GEF Progress toward Impact: from Hypothesis to

Evidence Programming Resources: the Challenge of

Addressing Global and Transboundary Issues at the National Level

Toward Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness The GEF as a learning organization The Nature of the GEF: at a Crossroads?

2

The GEF in a changing world Climate Change is more rapid than expected and may

aggravate other environmental trends Costs of mitigation, adaptation, action on chemicals, land

degradation etc. very high – but cost of not taking action is also very high

Costs are magnitude higher than what can be funded by the public sector alone

The international governance on environmental issues is fragmented and competing for limited resources

Yet “tragedy of the commons” continues – Arctic region, “high seas”, space, integrated approach to water resources

International public funding for environment and related issues has gone down since 1997 – new funds promised but not yet visible on the ground

GEF funding has gone down as percentage of overall ODA International financial crisis has shifted the focus to

international trade, jobs, financial stability

3

GEF and environment funding

4

Trend in ODA

5 Source: OECD DAC

Interim report: overview The GEF in a changing world The catalytic nature of the GEF Progress toward Impact: from Hypothesis to

Evidence Programming Resources: the Challenge of

Addressing Global and Transboundary Issues at the National Level

Toward Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness The GEF as a learning organization The Nature of the GEF: at a Crossroads?

6

Catalytic nature of GEF

Three categories approach:1. “Foundational” and enabling activities focus on policy,

regulatory frameworks, and national priority setting and relevant capacity;

2. Medium-size and full-size projects and the Small Grants Programme focus on demonstration, capacity development, innovation, and market barrier removal

3. Full-size projects with high rates of cofunding, catalyzing investments or implementing a new strategic approach at a national level

This approach is in line with guidance of the conventions

Evaluative evidence shows that these categories “hang together” and could ensure effectivity and impact

7

Interim report: overview The GEF in a changing world The catalytic nature of the GEF Progress toward Impact: from Hypothesis to

Evidence Programming Resources: the Challenge of

Addressing Global and Transboundary Issues at the National Level

Toward Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness The GEF as a learning organization The Nature of the GEF: at a Crossroads?

8

Impact methodology

EO started developing GEF impact methodology in 2006

Field test of impact assessment in Protected Areas in Eastern Africa in 2007

“Review of Outcomes to Impact” methodology in 2008 now at three levels:– Desk reviews of 210 finished projects– Field reviews of 9 of these projects– Full-fledged impact evaluation on Ozone Depleting

Substances

Triangulated with case studies, evaluative evidence from other evaluations, focal area strategy and portfolio analysis, research

9

Approach

10

Solid progress toward impact in all three categories Climate Change:

– Approximately 60 percent of the projects reviewed already show impacts at project termination through reduced and avoided GHG emissions

Biodiversity:– 10-15 of projects show immediate impact and 60% of

projects are progressing toward impact International Waters:

– Solid achievements, especially in threat reduction Ozone Depleting Substances:

– Production stopped; use slowly re-emerging due to illegal trade; destruction of stock-piles an issue

Other focal areas: no impact yet – insufficient time and numbers

Progress toward Impact

11

Interim report: overview The GEF in a changing world The catalytic nature of the GEF Progress toward Impact: from Hypothesis to

Evidence Programming Resources: the Challenge of

Addressing Global and Transboundary Issues at the National Level

Toward Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness The GEF as a learning organization The Nature of the GEF: at a Crossroads?

12

Ability to deliver?

Perception is linked to the preparatory phase Decision to shorten approval phase to 22 months

not yet visible at the country level The final report of OPS4 will aim to provide insight

in causes and possible solutions While further improvements in the programming

phase are necessary, the final report will also look at whether the current funding levels of the GEF are sufficient for the kind of support that the GEF is supposed to make available according to guidance of the conventions, its catalytic and incremental role

Current evidence suggests that funding levels are not adequate.

13

According to guidance? GEF support continues to be in line with guidance from

the conventions, where applicable, as noted in OPS3 No evidence that the increasing emphasis on national

programming in the GEF leads to reduced attention for global environmental issues

Through becoming signatories to a convention, countries are required to bring their national policies in line with convention obligations

Evidence so far suggests that countries have used GEF support to introduce new policies and to support the requisite environmental legislation and regulatory frameworks

Challenge is to provide incentives to countries to collaborate on transboundary issues which are of global significance

14

Interim report: overview The GEF in a changing world The catalytic nature of the GEF Progress toward Impact: from Hypothesis to

Evidence Programming Resources: the Challenge of

Addressing Global and Transboundary Issues at the National Level

Toward Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness The GEF as a learning organization The Nature of the GEF: at a Crossroads?

15

Performance

Target for GEF-4: 75% of projects should score moderately satisfactory or higher on achievement of outcomes

OPS4 cohort of projects (2005-2008) has achieved 80%– Ratings have been triangulated with evaluation offices of

GEF agencies, field verifications and other evaluative evidence

GEF activity cycle continues to be of great concern– Final report will contain analysis of PIF process

RAF mid-term review will be updated– Global/regional projects have reached historical level– Further analysis in final report

16

Interim report: overview The GEF in a changing world The catalytic nature of the GEF Progress toward Impact: from Hypothesis to

Evidence Programming Resources: the Challenge of

Addressing Global and Transboundary Issues at the National Level

Toward Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness The GEF as a learning organization The Nature of the GEF: at a Crossroads?

17

GEF as Learning Organization

GEF should be “well poised” to learn– STAP, M&E Policy, Catalytic role, Innovation

Challenges:– Relatively few efforts to learn across agencies– Insufficient recognition of catalytic role and lack of

tracking tools– GEF is “thin on the ground” and strong at the top

Quality of M&E at project level has improved substantially– But baseline data continue to be a problem

On-going work for final report:– Inclusion of Peer review of Evaluation Function– Analysis of sample of projects

18

Interim report: overview The GEF in a changing world The catalytic nature of the GEF Progress toward Impact: from Hypothesis to

Evidence Programming Resources: the Challenge of

Addressing Global and Transboundary Issues at the National Level

Toward Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness The GEF as a learning organization The Nature of the GEF: at a Crossroads?

19

Structure of GEF

OPS3: GEF has reached limit of network organization

Inside and outside pressure has increased– New roles for GEF Secretariat and National Focal Points

due to RAF– Paris declaration calls for harmonization and alignment

with national priorities– Growing demand for direct access

Evaluative evidence so far suggests that the GEF needs to solve the tension in its network relationships to become a smooth and efficient operator, especially in identifying project ideas, programming of national support, and appraisal and approval.

20

Remaining work on TOR

Question 1: added value of the GEF Question 7: feedback to conventions Question 9: governance system of the GEF Question 10: update of RAF mid-term review Question 11: portfolio analysis and comparison studies

leading to conclusions on efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the GEF; PIF analysis to understand causes for delays in project approval; analysis of global/regional projects and programmatic approaches

Question 12: GEF’s structure and division of roles and responsibilities

Question 14: learning at the project level and role of STAP

Question 16: management of human, financial and administrative resources in the GEF

21

Governance

The final OPS4 report will contain an assessment of the current governance structure and the role of its various components

On the replenishment process, current best practice in several recent replenishments has been to involve (non-donor) recipient countries as members of the process– The 15th replenishment of the International Development

Association included nine borrower country members

The interim report recommends that non-donor recipient countries of the GEF should be included in the replenishment process – During the Council meeting examples were presented on

inclusion of CSOs as observers

22

23

Area TeamCoordination Rob D. van den Berg, Claudio Volonte, Juan J. Portillo, Anna Viggh, Evelyn

Chihuguyu

Role Rob D. van den Berg, Holly Dublin, Ines Angulo, Meg SpearmanResults David Todd, Sam Fujisaka, CDC Kenya, Baastel, Aaron Zazueta, Alan Fox, Lee

Risby, Marina Gracco, Josh Brann, Susan Matambo, Rebecca Frischkorn, Meg Spearman, Timothy Ranja, Tommaso Balbo, Timothy Turner, Touchdown Canada, Shaista Ahmed

Relevance Claudio Volonte, Florentina MulajPerformance Aaron Zazueta, Neeraj Negi, Sam Fujisaka, ICF Consulting, Ken Watson, Florentina

Mulaj, Tommaso Balbo, Victoriya Kim, Brian Giacometti, John Markie, Yu-Kui Zhou, Rob D. van den Berg

Peer Review of the Evaluation Function

Independent Peer Review Panel

Governance study Carlos Pérez del CastilloResources John MarkiePortfolio Analysis Neeraj Negi, Yu-Kui ZhouStakeholder Consultations Juan J. Portillo, Rob D. van den Berg, David Todd, Aaron Zazueta, Sandra Romboli,

Anna Viggh, Lee Risby, Soledad Mackinnon, Oswaldo Gómez, Holly Dublin, ICF Consulting, CSP, SGP, NGO Network, Carlos Pérez del Castillo, Marina Cracco, Elizabeth George, Evelyn Chihuguyu

Country Case Studies Claudio Volonte, Aaron Zazueta, David Todd, Sandra Romboli, Neeraj Negi, Lee Risby, Anna Viggh, Soledad Mackinnon, Rob Craig, national consultants

Communications & Publication Sandra Romboli, Soledad Mackinnon, Oswaldo Gomez

Quality Assurance Peer Group Juha Uitto (UNDP); Ken Chomitz, Lauren Kelly, Richard Worden (IEG); Michael Spilsbury (UNEP); Johannes Dobinger (UNIDO); Rachel Bedouin, Bob Moore (FAO); Mala Hettige, Richard Bold (ADB)

Senior Independent Evaluation Advisors

Shekhar Singh, Bob Picciotto

Suggestions, comments, issues, questions?

OPS4@thegef.org

THANKS!

24