Progress towards Results Overall Performance Study of the GEF

Progress towards Progress towards ResultsResults

Overall Performance Study of Overall Performance Study of the GEFthe GEF

IntroductionIntroduction

OPS4 is an independent study to assess the extent to which the GEF is achieving its objectives and to identify potential improvements.

OPS4 is a working document of the 5th Replenishment of the GEF and will be presented to the Assembly in May 2010.

Final report was presented to the third replenishment meeting, 13-14 October, 2009.

ScopeScope

16 key questions identified in ToR.

All projects and project proposals until June 30, 2009 were studied:• 2,389 finished, on-going and approved projects: $ 8,772 M.

• Project Terminal evaluations since OPS3: 215.

OPS4 built on OPS3, 24 evaluation reports of the Evaluation Office, and evidence from:• 57 countries, visited after OPS3

• 9 special country case studies

• 10 additional project visits

• Literature and desk reviews, interviews, surveys

Consultations with representatives of all stakeholders

LimitationsLimitations All 16 key questions answered, but varying degrees of depth;

Need more evidence on:• The involvement of civil society and the private sector in the

GEF• Resources management in the GEF• Cost-effectiveness

Two major evaluations of the Evaluation Office have led to on-going reform processes:• The reform of the project cycle; positive indications but it is

too soon for an evaluative judgments• The reform of the RAF

Impact evidence in the GEF is still limited to the 3 implementing agencies: World Bank, UNDP and UNEP.

GEF Portfolio (1)GEF Portfolio (1)

Pilot GEF-1 GEF-2 GEF-3 GEF-4 TOTAL

726 1,228 1,857 2,804 2,156 8,772 *

GEF Project Funding (million $) *includes LDCF and SCCF

Focal Areas #projects Funding ($ M) Funding %

Biodiversity 946 2,792 32.5%

Climate Change 659 2,743 31.9%

International Waters

172 1,065 12.4%

Ozone Depleting Substances

26 180 2.1%

Persistent Organic

Pollutants

200 358 4.2%

Land Degradation

76 339 3.9%

Multifocal 310 1,114 13.0%

All Focal Areas 2,389 8,591 100%

GEF Portfolio (2)GEF Portfolio (2)

Modality Pilot Phase GEF 1 GEF 2 GEF 3 GEF 4 All Phases

FSP 678 1,126 1,566 2,351 1,719 7,440

MSP 0 7 124 136 104 371

EAs 35 69 91 132 7 334

SGP 13 26 75 165 166 446

Total 726 1,228 1,857 2,784 1,996 8,590

Report overviewReport overview GEF in a Changing World

• International Context• Resource Mobilization• Convention Guidance• The Catalytic Nature of the GEF• Programming Resources

Progress toward Impact• From Hypothesis to Evidence• Focal Area and Multi Focal Area Progress

Issues affecting Results• Performance• The GEF as a Learning Organization• Resources Management

Governance and Partnership

The full document, annexes, methodological and technical documents related to OPS4 can be found in www.gefeo.org

GEF in a Changing World (1)GEF in a Changing World (1)

Conclusion 1: Global environmental trends continue to spiral downward.

Recommendation 1: Funding levels for global environmental issues need to rise substantially.

Conclusion 2: The GEF has been underfunded since GEF-2.• Replenishments led to less funds in real terms:

GEF Replenishments (thousand $) Source: GEF Trustee; $deflator OECD DAC

Pilot GEF 1 GEF 2 GEF 3 GEF 4

Pledged 843 2,015 1,983 2,211 2,289

Received 843 2,012 1,687 2,095 2,169

% 100 100 78 90 83


• Whereas funds available for aid grew:GEF Replenishments and Trends in ODA (thousand $). Source: OECD, GEF

• And the GEF was asked to do more… More focal areas, more guidance, more countries

Recommendation 2: • Substantial increase for the GEF-5 replenishment

• OR the GEF will need to dramatically reduce support to focal areas, groups of countries, or modalities.

Pilot GEF 1 GEF 2 GEF 3 GEF 4

Total ODA

304,725 302,595 280,529 416,132 283,278

GEF 843 2,023 1,687 2,095 2,169

% 0.28 0.67 0.60 0.50 0.38


Conclusion 3: the GEF’s link to international environmental agreements as a financial mechanism is an added value.

Recommendation 3: • Interaction between the GEF and the conventions need to be

improved.

• Guidance should be more focused and prioritized at the national level.


Conclusion 4: The GEF’s mode of operation through three levels of action – foundation, demonstration, and investment – supports its catalytic role• Role has worked well in Middle Income Countries

• Not so much in LDCs, SIDS and fragile states

• Focus on demonstration will reduce the GEF’s catalytic effect and the sustainability of global environmental effects achieved.

Recommendation 4: To strengthen GEFs catalytic role • Increase funding level

• Incorporate lessons in improved guidance and monitoring

• Best model for catalytic work: International Waters strategy.


Conclusion 5: GEF support is relevant to • national environmental and sustainable development priorities,

• international and regional processes

Recommendation 5: Develop programming at the national level• Support the creation of GEF national committees and GEF national

business plans

• In line with Paris Declaration on aid effectiveness and Accra Agenda for Action

• Impact achieved through follow-up work of national partners: governments, civil society, private sector and local communities

Progress toward ImpactProgress toward Impact

Conclusion 6: 70% of finished projects show moderate to solid progress toward impact

• Climate change: reduction or avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions and of sustainable market changes

• Biodiversity: conservation and sustainable use (through protected areas and mainstreaming biodiversity in production sectors)

• International Waters: promotion of new international and regional agreements on transboundary water bodies and has catalyzed the implementation of several existing agreements

• Ozone-depleting substances: phase-out of consumption and production in countries with economies in transition

• Persistent Organic Pollutants: support for national plans

• Land Degradation: no conclusions yet (few finished projects)

Issues Affecting Results (1)Issues Affecting Results (1)

Conclusion 7: The GEF achieves 80% moderately satisfactory and higher outcomes (benchmark norm is 75%); yet inefficiencies continue in the pre-approval phase• World Bank and UNDP have a satisfactory level of supervision; • Supervision by UNEP has improved significantly over time

Recommendation 7: GEF project performance should be further strengthened• improved guidelines,• better fee structure, • strengthening of social and gender issues


Conclusion 8: The SGP continues to be an effective tool for the GEF

Recommendation 8: The SGP should be recognized as a GEF modality that should be available to all recipient countries

Reform the central management system to make it suitable for the new phase of growth

Prepare a suitable modality for funding national programs Publish a grievance procedure through which conflicts can

be settled Establish a process by which audits will be made public


Conclusion 9: Learning in the GEF is still not structurally and systematically encouraged

Recommendation 9: Learning in the GEF should • focus on cross-agency and cross-country learning

• be consolidated in a corporate strategy.

Conclusion 10: Monitoring, tracking tools, and impact indicators are not yet fully integrated into a results-based management framework for the GEF

Recommendation 10: The GEF should integrate impact indicators and measurements in the results-based framework for GEF-5

Issues Affecting Results (4)Issues Affecting Results (4) Conclusion 11: Resources are managed relatively well in the GEF,

but improvements are possible• The GEF Trust Fund faces higher exchange rate risks than are now

taken into account

• Recipient countries also face exchange rate risks; there is currently no GEF policy on this risk

• The GEF’s fiduciary standards address areas that are not generally considered to be financial (project appraisal and evaluation) and that are overly prescriptive (audits)

• The GEF fee system (10% per project) needs to be reviewed

• The GEF does not appear to be more costly as compared to other facilities and funds

Recommendation 11: Improvements in resource management should focus on • developing a new system for reserving funds for project ideas

• reforming fiduciary standards and the fee system

Governance and Partnership (1)Governance and Partnership (1)

Conclusion 12: The governance model of the GEF compares well to that of other international organizations• The GEF governance model seems adequate for fulfilling

most of the tasks assigned by the GEF Instrument.• The GEF Assembly currently meets once every four years,

which does not fulfill its potential in enabling all GEF members to participate in key decisions.

• The GEF Council’s constituency system creates problems for developing countries

• The GEF is in line with current practice for international financial institutions concerning the division between governance and management. However, that practice is not in line with what is considered best standards of governance.

• There is no institutionalized process of self-evaluation for the Council.


• Recommendation 12: Governance can be further improved

• The GEF Assembly should meet every two years in order to respond to a rapidly evolving environmental agenda, urgent new challenges, and growing convention needs and demands. This modification will require an amendment of the GEF Instrument.

• The current problems in developing countries constituencies should be addressed.

• During GEF-5, the GEF Council should lead a discussion on how to better separate governance and management functions, roles, and responsibilities between the Council and the CEO/Chair.


Conclusion 13: Tensions in the GEF partnership arise from programming and project identification issues• Caused by poor communication

• Fundamental questions on the appropriate roles of the GEF partners

Recommendation 13: The GEF Council should address tensions within the GEF partnership and provide guidance on roles and responsibilities

Consultations with Focal PointsConsultations with Focal Points

8 sub regional consultations:

• Latin America• Caribbean• Asia• Middle East and North Africa • Eastern and South Africa • Central and Western Africa• Pacific• Eastern Europe

Representatives of 113 countries

Participants: 185

Consultation with Focal Points: Main Consultation with Focal Points: Main ConclusionsConclusions

ROLE: • The GEF provides valuable support to countries to address global

environmental issues

RELEVANCE: • GEF support is largely seen as relevant to global environmental

issues and to conventions

• GEF operations could be more relevant to national priorities.

RESULTS:• Important contributions on capacity building and strengthening of

institutions and of environmental legislative frameworks

• Short term funding of GEF operations is seen as a factor hampering sustainability and long term results

Consultation with Focal Points: Main Consultation with Focal Points: Main Conclusions (cont.)Conclusions (cont.)

PERFORMANCE:• Insufficient transparency in decision making across the GEF

system. • Unclear criteria and process for project identification and

approval which cause confusion and delays.• GEF co-funding requirements should be more flexible.• Agency performance varies greatly, several general concerns

need to be addressed.

Follow up:• Need to better codify roles and responsibilities with

regards to focal points• Need to strengthen country M&E• Need to make co-funding requirements more flexible

In brief (1)In brief (1) Under funding of the GEF:

• International funding gap on global environmental problems

• Funding gap on guidance from the conventions

• Funding gap in full scale support in several groups of countries (LDCs, SIDS, Fragile states)

The GEF shows solid progress toward impact• The sustainability of these outcomes is good – 70% of finished

projects see progress toward global environmental benefits, although further follow-up action from national partners is essential to achieve global environmental benefits

Performance is satisfactory• The GEF projects are effective in producing outcomes, with the

average score over the GEF-4 period of 80% exceeding the international benchmark of 75%

In brief (2)In brief (2)

The efficiency of the GEF can and should be further improved• emphasis on programming, • less time lost on project identification, • better project formulation,• enhanced fee structure, • more integrated learning,• results-based management framework that includes progress to

impact measurements

“Inability to deliver” is perception linked to pre-approval phase• Reform processes are underway and show promise• GEF should move from focal area programming toward

programming on a national level

If the GEF-5 replenishment recommendations include strong proposals concerning programming, efficiency and partnership, OPS4 supports the highest level of replenishment for the GEF

THANK YOU

www.gefeo.org

Documents

Progress towards Results Overall Performance Study of the GEF