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. Overall Goal of OPS2.
OPS2 Member & Director , EDRC, University of Cape Town
COP8 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
October 25, 2002
To assess the performance of the GEF since its inception, with particular focus on the period since the restructuring of GEF in 1994.
Terms of Reference and team composition approved by GEF Council
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
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?
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.
Impacts & Results – Climate Change Caribbean States
Program & Policy Issues – Climate Change Caribbean States
Overall Conclusions – Climate Change Caribbean States
Overall Findings – Relations with Conventions Caribbean States
Recommendations – Relations with Conventions Caribbean States
Major Overall Findings/Conclusions Caribbean States
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.
Findings/Conclusions (contd) Caribbean States
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.
Recommendations Caribbean States
14 Recommendations covering areas of GEF partnership, Strengthening Country Capacity, Operational Issues, Capacity of the GEF Secretariat, Strengthening GEF’s Institutional Capacity and Structure.
Council recommended and GEF Assembly approved a Plan of Action covering the period 2002-2006 to follow-up on the recommendations.