GEF Slideshow - Continuous Loop Version

1
Second Overall Performance Study (OPS2) of the GEF
OGUNLADE DAVIDSON OPS2 Member Director , EDRC,
University of Cape Town COP8 of the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change New Delhi October 25, 2002
2
Overall Goal of OPS2
To assess the performance of the GEF since its
inception, with particular focus on the period
since the restructuring of GEF in 1994.
3
OPS2 Team

• Carried out in 2001 by an independent team of 8
  professionals
• Leif Christoffersen (Norway), Team leader
• Ogunlade Davidson (Sierra Leone)
• Maria Conception Donoso (Panama)
• John Fargher (Australia)
• Allen Hammond (U.S)
• Emma Hooper (U.K)
• Thomas Mathew (India)
• Jameson Seyani (Malawi)

Terms of Reference and team composition approved
by GEF Council
4
Advisory Panel
Jose Goldemberg (Brazil) Hisham Khatib
(Jordan) Akiko Domoto (Japan) Corinne Lepage
(France) Zhang Kunmin (China)
Advisory panel selected by CEO/Chairman Senior
Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator
5
Major Questions of OPS2
1. What are impacts or results related to global
environment achieved through activities supported
by the GEF?
2. What bearing do GEF relations with the UN
Conventions have on these results?
3. How have GEF policies or programs influenced
these results?
4. How have GEF institutional arrangements and
relationships reflected on its performance?
6
OPS2 Approach
11 Country Visits Argentina, Brazil, China,
Jamaica, Jordan, Nepal, Romania, Samoa, Senegal,
South Africa, and Uganda. Reviewed projects in
Bulgaria, Hungary, Kenya, Lebanon,
Tanzania. Regional consultations Jamaica,
Kenya, Mexico, Romania, Senegal,Thailand.
Consultations with GEF Council, Secretariat,
Implementing Agencies, Executing Agencies,
Secretariats of UNFCCC, CBD, CCD, GEF-NGO Network
Members.
7
Information Sources

• Four program studies by the monitoring and
  evaluation team of GEF Secretariat and Ias
• Evaluation reports of completed projects and IAs
  reports
• Country and project visits and Regional
  consultations
• Interviews with IAs, STAP, and Convention
  secretariats (CBD, UNFCCC, and CCD)

8
Limitations of Study

• Limitations in data and information
• Lack of baseline data on completed and on-going
  projects
• Only 95 completed projects representing 12 of
  total portfolio
• Lack of impact related data on projects during
  pilot phase
• Lack of clear operational definition of global
  benefits

9
Visit 1- Coal Bed Methane in ChinaTechnology
Development and Commercialisation

• Implemented by UNDP with 10m of GEF Funds
• GEF funds assisted development and dissemination
  of CBM technology
• Findings
• Gas recovery increased from 40 to 70
• Household use increased from 22,000 to 165,000,
  and sales as well
• Inclusion of CBM technology in Schools and
  Colleges
• Mastery of the technology that led to development
  of new techniques
• Company formed, Tiefa Mining Co can now attract
  funds outside China for further development

10
Visit 2- Efficient Lighting in PolandMarket
Transformation

• Implemented by IFC aimed at replacing
  incandescent light bulbs with energy-efficient
  lamps (CFLs) Less energy use leading to reduced
  GHG
• Direct subsidy through competition, expanded
  distribution, product promotion, and education to
  increase use
• Findings
• After 1 year, penetration increased from 11.5 to
  33.2 later to 50
• Price declined in real terms by 34 between 1995
  and 1998
• High consumer satisfaction and awareness
• After project completion Development of a
  cooperative program, increased sales, new
  manufactures, etc

11
Visit 3- Planning for Adaptation to Climate
Change Impacts Caribbean States

• Participation 12 low-lying Caribbean Island
  countries
• Project aims establishing a planning process to
  cope with adverse impacts to climate change (VA,
  adaptation planning, and capacity building)
• Involvement of university of West Indies and
  Regional organisations
• Findings
• Established a network of measuring devices and
  regional center
• Integrating the monitoring system into global
  system
• Strengthen human capacity in climate change
  issues
• Identification of impacts and options for
  national development agenda
• Establish a Regional Climate Change Centre of
  Excellence

12
Impacts Results Climate Change

• 270 projects in 120 countries for GEF funding of
  US 1 billion 28 projects completed as of June
  30, 2000.
• Portfolio has demonstrated a wide range of
  approaches to promote energy efficiency and
  renewable energy.
• Early projects focused on Technology, while later
  on market development and financing mechanisms.
• Most effective in promoting energy efficiency.
• Moderate success in promoting grid-connected
  renewable energy
• Least success with off-grid rural renewable
  energy projects.
• Important results achieved in a number of areas
• Technology Development and Demonstration.
• Market-oriented approaches.
• Capacity Building and Institutional Development.
• Policy Development

13
Program Policy Issues Climate Change

1. Sharing Experience and Lessons gained from GEF
   projects be strengthened and accelerated as such
   transfer has been slow though there has been some
   recent efforts
2. Replication of Project Results is limited so far
   based on the limited number of completed projects
3. Strengthening Project Risk Assessment and
   Management so that projects can adjust to market
   changes, technology, macroeconomic conditions,
   co-financing and government commitments
4. Long-term Programmatic Approaches that
   co-ordinate and matched to a long-term strategy
   proved useful.
5. Enabling Activities were found generally useful
   but climate change is novel and complex and
   projects were focused on meeting UNFCCC
   obligations than national needs and priorities

14
Overall Conclusions Climate Change

1. Target productive uses of renewable energy in
   rural areas
2. Create enabling environments for market
   transformation.
3. Make better use of differing capacities and
   special strengths of different IAs and EAs.
4. Enhance the learning capacity of the GEF
   include Secretariat in mid-term reviews of
   projects.
5. Increase leveraging of projects from 51 to 61
   to 501 and higher.

15
Overall Findings Relations with Conventions

• The GEF has been responsive to the UNFCCC and CBD
  and the Operational strategy and programs reflect
  the objectives and priorities of the Conventions
  
• Some confusion among IAs and countries in
  defining global environmental benefits and
  financing activities that primarily national
  benefits
• The GEF has had some difficulties in translating
  broad convention guidance into practical
  operational activities.
• Considerable progress has been made in improving
  communications between the GEF Secretariat and
  the Convention Secretariats.

16
Recommendations Relations with Conventions

• The GEF should adopt a cautious approach to
  funding any new rounds of enabling activities to
  the same convention. All such activities must be
  assessed for their effectiveness in responding to
  the convention guidance and to country needs.
• GEF should continue support for capacity
  development of operaytional focal points, the
  national GEF coordinating structures and country
  dialogue workshops
• Assessment of the use of national reports,
  national communications, and national action
  programs within the strategic frameworks for a
  countrys national sustainable development
  program and for GEFs programming and project
  preparation activities.
• It recommends that the GEF Council explore the
  feasibility of each country reporting directly to
  the appropriate convention on the effectiveness
  and results of GEFs country-relevant support for
  both enabling activities and projects.

• In its dialogue with each convention that it
  supports, the GEF should regularly seek to update
  and clarify existing priorities and commitments
  in light of each new round of guidance it
  receives.

17
Major Overall Findings/Conclusions
1. The GEF has produced significant project
results that address important global
environmental issues.
2. The GEF has been serving the UNFCCC and the
CBD
3. Since the understanding of the GEF is very
weak within recipient countries, substantial
improvements are urgently needed in how GEF
operates at the country level.
4. Stakeholder participation must be addressed
more systematically.
5. Greater clarity needed to countries and
project stakeholders on global benefits and
incremental costs.
18
Findings/Conclusions (contd)
6. Improvements are needed in processing GEF
projects and in improving GEF visibility through
better information products and communication.
7. The catalytic role of the GEF needs better
focus.
8. Small grants and medium-sized projects have
produced good results and can be effective first
steps in GEF programming aimed at subsequent
larger projects.
9. The GEF needs to engage the private sector
more extensively.
10. The institutional roles and responsibilities
of GEF partners need clarification and
modification.
19
Recommendations
14 Recommendations covering areas of GEF
partnership, Strengthening Country Capacity,
Operational Issues, Capacity of the GEF
Secretariat, Strengthening GEFs Institutional
Capacity and Structure.

• Presented to
• GEF Council in May 2002.
• GEF Assembly in October 2002.

Council recommended and GEF Assembly approved a
Plan of Action covering the period 2002-2006 to
follow-up on the recommendations.