Fourth Overall Performance Study OPS4

1
Fourth Overall Performance Study
(OPS4) Consultation with the Civil Society
2
Overview

• OPS4
• Objective
• Scope
• Methodology
• Timeline Key dates
• Conflict of interest
• Consultations with the civil society
• Results from previous evaluations
• OPS3
• Other
• Discussion

3
Overall Performance Studies

• The objective of Overall Performance Studies is
  to asses the extent to which the GEF is achieving
  its objectives and to identify possible
  improvements
• Requirement for the fund replenishment every 4
  years

4
OPS4

• OPS4 will report on portfolio outcomes, the
  sustainability and catalytic effect of those
  outcomes and the impacts that were achieved in
  the focal areas of the GEF
• Approach 5 clusters of questions, elaborated on
  the base of evaluation reports previously
  presented to Council

5
Scope

• 1. Role and added value of the GEF within context
  of global environmental problems
• 2. Results of the GEF in the 6 focal areas and in
  supporting countries with their national
  sustainable development
• 3. Relevance of the GEF to conventions and to
  recipient countries
• 4. Performance issues affecting results,
  including governance, RAF, efficiency and
  cost-effectiveness, roles and responsibilities,
  review of ME Policy, science and technology
  (includes STAP)
• 5. Resource mobilization financial management
  assessing the replenishment process and financing
  of GEF through history

6
Methodology

• Mixed methods and theory-based approach
• Literature and document reviews
• Desk studies
• Field visits and verifications
• Interviews, surveys
• Portfolio analysis
• Stakeholder consultations
• Where needed Delphi approach and expert panels
• 11 country case studies (evaluation evidence from
  additional 35 countries)
• Comparative studies with other Funds

7
OPS4 Key Milestones

• Terms of Reference approved by Council
• September 5, 2008
• Interim report to replenishment meeting
• April 2009
• Interim Report to Council
• June 2009
• Final OPS 4 report to replenishment meeting
• September/October 2009

8
Conflict of Interest Issues

• The GEF Evaluation Office will ensure that
  independent experts evaluate the following
  aspects within OPS4, to prevent conflict of
  interest
• GEF ME Policy by UNEG/DAC sponsored panel of
  professional evaluators
• Governance in the GEF, especially the role of the
  Council
• Role and functioning (and support for) the GEF
  focal points
• Management of the GEF Trust Fund and role of the
  GEF Trustee

9
Building on OPS3 and Program Studies

• OPS3 and focal area program studies noted that
  substantial results have been achieved
• In biodiversity external support has been
  provided to protected areas that cover almost 17
  percent of the total land area protected globally
• The relatively rapid ratification of the
  Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety has been directly
  influenced by the GEFs support to develop
  National Biosafety Frameworks
• Greenhouse gas emissions have already been
  reduced with 224 million metric tons of CO2
  equivalent
• The GEF has been instrumental in getting
  governments to collaborate on transboundary water
  issues, reducing environmental stress, in
  particular in the Black Sea Danube and Lake
  Victoria

10
Building on OPS3 continued

• The consumption and emissions of ozone-depleting
  substances have been eliminated in countries with
  economies in transition
• The GEF plays an important catalytic role in
  developing and transforming energy markets,
  particularly through its energy efficiency
  portfolio
• In many of its projects, local incentives have
  been made available to ensure sustainability of
  environmental gains
• Furthermore, the outlook for future results is
  positive as well
• The GEF will provide crucial support to achieve
  the global aim of 10 percent of the worlds land
  area under protection
• The GEF is projected to contribute with 1.7
  billion metric tons of CO2 equivalent in
  reductions through on-going projects
• The GEF is well placed to deliver important
  results in the newer focal areas of land
  degradation and persistent organic pollutants.

11
Building on OPS3 continued

• OPS3 also found that
• Guidance from the Conventions has been poorly
  focused and proliferated without prioritization.
• GEF has been generally responsive by funding
  activities in almost all of the areas of guidance
  with some exceptions
• Addressing CBD convention priority on Access and
  Benefit Sharing Clarifying climate change
  adaptation activities differences on priorities
  in the UNCCD and Stockholm Convention vs. those
  articulated in GEF programs
• Recommendation
• Strengthen the two-way communication between
  GEFSEC and Convention Secretariats.

12
Building on OPS3 continued

• OPS3 also found that
• The GEF network structure is the appropriate
  institutional form to enable the GEF to meet its
  mandate and operations.
• There is growing harmonization of goals and
  processes across the GEF.
• OPS3 Recommendation
• Strengthen the role of the GEFSEC as the network
  administrative office.
• Clarify roles and responsibilities for all GEF
  partners

13
Evaluations since OPS3

• The Role of Local Benefits in Global
  Environmental Projects
• GEF support to the Cartagena Protocol (Biosafety)
• JE of the GEF Activity Cycle and Modalities
• Experience of the Executing Agencies
• Incremental Cost Assessment
• JE of the Small Grants Programme
• Annual Performance Reports
• Country Portfolio Evaluations
• Costa Rica, the Philippines, Samoa, Benin,
  Madagascar, South Africa, and Cameroon.
• Annual Reports on Impact
• RAF Mid Term Review

14
Findings since OPS3

• In the context of CPEs
• GEF support was found to be relevant to its
  mandate, to national environmental priorities, to
  sustainable development priorities, and to
  international and regional processes.
• The enabling activities have supported in
  building the foundations for the countrys
  environmental frameworks and strategies.
• Strengthening the concept of integrated
  multifocal area approaches.
• Outstanding issues better integration of
  biosafety into biodiversity portfolio and of
  local benefits into GEF programming.

15
Since OPS3

• SGP has slightly higher success rate in achieving
  global environmental benefits significantly
  higher rate in sustaining them than GEF medium-
  and full-size projects.
• Some GEF projects made considerable achievements
  in developing local incentives to ensure
  environmental gains in others, local-global
  linkages were not sufficiently taken into
  account.
• A wide range of enabling activities helped
  achieve global environmental benefits,
  particularly in BD CC
• Sustainability of outcomes was hindered by weak
  institutional and/or financial capacity and a
  lack of trackable indicators.

16
Since OPS3

• Significant improvement in the overall quality of
  TEs
• RAF may have diminished the GEF effectiveness
• General confusion about the implementation of RAF
  
• FPs role has changed, but without clear guidance
• GEF Agencies are not involved as equal partners
  in GEF
• Project efficiency is affected by delays in
  project development and implementation
• 43 of the projects life-span is spent in
  pre-implementation.
• Average completion delay for projects of the FY
  2006 and FY 2007 cohort 13 months.

17
On-going work

• To be integrated into OPS4
• Annual Country Portfolio Evaluation (Claudio
  Volonte, Sandra Romboli, Anna Viggh, Timothy
  Ranja) June 2009
• Cameroon, Egypt and Syria
• Annual Performance Report (Aaron Zazueta, Neeraj
  Negi, Tomasso Balbo) June 2009
• Quality of supervision
• Terminal evaluations
• ME at entry
• Annual Report of GEF Impacts (David Todd, Lee
  Risby, Timothy Ranja, Oswaldo Gomez, Shaista
  Ahmed)
• Quasi-experimental studies
• Ozone Focal Area (Nov. 2009) Russia, Ukraine,
  Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan
• Evaluation Reports of GEF Agencies (UNDP EO, IEG
  others)

18
Interaction with GEF Focal Points

• Protocol for interaction is a guide
• interaction should be open, any additional
  topics, issues or themes?
• Please send us additional documentation that you
  think would help OPS4
• Global survey will be sent in a few weeks
• Consultants may contact you to go deeper into
  specific topics
• OPS4_at_thegef.org

19
Key Questions for Discussion

• Role
• What role and value added does the GEF have in
  tackling major global environmental and
  sustainable development problems?
• Results
• What have been the results of the GEF support in
  your country?
• What is the likelihood for sustainability?
• Relevance of the GEF in supporting
• The objectives of the conventions?
• National and/or regional environmental and
  sustainable development priorities?

20
Key Questions for Discussions

• Performance
• Governance of the GEF
• Project cycle improvements? How does GEF compare
  with other donors?
• Levels of cofinancing
• Roles and responsibilities between GEF Agencies
  and government/civil society in your country
• GEF Focal Point mechanism have you received
  support? Do you participate in ME? how does it
  work?
• RAF

21
Thank youops4_at_thegef.org