1 / 26

Progress towards Results

Progress towards Results. Overall Performance Study of the GEF. Introduction. OPS4 is an independent study to assess the extent to which the GEF is achieving its objectives and to identify potential improvements.

forrest-church
Download Presentation

Progress towards Results

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Progress towards Results Overall Performance Study of the GEF

  2. Introduction • 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.

  3. Scope • 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

  4. Limitations • 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.

  5. GEF Portfolio (1) GEF Project Funding (million $) *includes LDCF and SCCF

  6. GEF Portfolio (2)

  7. Report 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

  8. 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

  9. GEF in a Changing World (2) • 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.

  10. GEF in a Changing World (3) • 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.

  11. GEF in a Changing World (5) • 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.

  12. GEF in a Changing World (6) • 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

  13. Progress 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)

  14. 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

  15. Issues Affecting Results (2) • 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

  16. Issues Affecting Results (3) • 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

  17. 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

  18. 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.

  19. Governance and Partnership (2) • 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.

  20. Governance and Partnership (3) • 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

  21. Consultations 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

  22. Consultation with Focal Points: Main Conclusions • 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

  23. Consultation with Focal Points: Main 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

  24. 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 sustainabilityof 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%

  25. In brief (2) • The efficiencyof 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

  26. THANK YOU www.gefeo.org

More Related