1. Fourth O verall Performance Study Interim Report June 25, 2009

2. Interim report: overview  The GEF in a changing world  The catalytic nature of the GEF  Progress toward Impact: from Hypothesis to Evidence  Programming Resources: the Challenge of Addressing Global and Transboundary Issues at the National Level  Toward Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness  The GEF as a learning organization  The Nature of the GEF: at a Crossroads? 2

3. The GEF in a changing world  Climate Change is more rapid than expected and may aggravate other environmental trends  Costs of mitigation, adaptation, action on chemicals, land degradation etc. very high – but cost of not taking action is also very high  Costs are magnitude higher than what can be funded by the public sector alone  The international governance on environmental issues is fragmented and competing for limited resources  Yet “tragedy of the commons” continues – Arctic region, “high seas”, space, integrated approach to water resources  International public funding for environment and related issues has gone down since 1997 – new funds promised but not yet visible on the ground  GEF funding has gone down as percentage of overall ODA  International financial crisis has shifted the focus to international trade, jobs, financial stability 3

4. GEF and environment funding 4

5. Trend in ODA 5 Source: OECD DAC

6. Interim report: overview  The GEF in a changing world  The catalytic nature of the GEF  Progress toward Impact: from Hypothesis to Evidence  Programming Resources: the Challenge of Addressing Global and Transboundary Issues at the National Level  Toward Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness  The GEF as a learning organization  The Nature of the GEF: at a Crossroads? 6

7. Catalytic nature of GEF  Three categories approach: 1.“Foundational” and enabling activities focus on policy, regulatory frameworks, and national priority setting and relevant capacity; 2.Medium-size and full-size projects and the Small Grants Programme focus on demonstration, capacity development, innovation, and market barrier removal 3.Full-size projects with high rates of cofunding, catalyzing investments or implementing a new strategic approach at a national level  This approach is in line with guidance of the conventions  Evaluative evidence shows that these categories “hang together” and could ensure effectivity and impact 7

8. Interim report: overview  The GEF in a changing world  The catalytic nature of the GEF  Progress toward Impact: from Hypothesis to Evidence  Programming Resources: the Challenge of Addressing Global and Transboundary Issues at the National Level  Toward Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness  The GEF as a learning organization  The Nature of the GEF: at a Crossroads? 8

9. Impact methodology  EO started developing GEF impact methodology in 2006  Field test of impact assessment in Protected Areas in Eastern Africa in 2007  “Review of Outcomes to Impact” methodology in 2008 now at three levels: –Desk reviews of 210 finished projects –Field reviews of 9 of these projects –Full-fledged impact evaluation on Ozone Depleting Substances  Triangulated with case studies, evaluative evidence from other evaluations, focal area strategy and portfolio analysis, research 9

10. Approach 10

11.  Solid progress toward impact in all three categories  Climate Change: –Approximately 60 percent of the projects reviewed already show impacts at project termination through reduced and avoided GHG emissions  Biodiversity: –10-15 of projects show immediate impact and 60% of projects are progressing toward impact  International Waters: –Solid achievements, especially in threat reduction  Ozone Depleting Substances: –Production stopped; use slowly re-emerging due to illegal trade; destruction of stock-piles an issue  Other focal areas: no impact yet – insufficient time and numbers Progress toward Impact 11

12. Interim report: overview  The GEF in a changing world  The catalytic nature of the GEF  Progress toward Impact: from Hypothesis to Evidence  Programming Resources: the Challenge of Addressing Global and Transboundary Issues at the National Level  Toward Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness  The GEF as a learning organization  The Nature of the GEF: at a Crossroads? 12

13. Ability to deliver?  Perception is linked to the preparatory phase  Decision to shorten approval phase to 22 months not yet visible at the country level  The final report of OPS4 will aim to provide insight in causes and possible solutions  While further improvements in the programming phase are necessary, the final report will also look at whether the current funding levels of the GEF are sufficient for the kind of support that the GEF is supposed to make available according to guidance of the conventions, its catalytic and incremental role  Current evidence suggests that funding levels are not adequate. 13

14. According to guidance?  GEF support continues to be in line with guidance from the conventions, where applicable, as noted in OPS3  No evidence that the increasing emphasis on national programming in the GEF leads to reduced attention for global environmental issues  Through becoming signatories to a convention, countries are required to bring their national policies in line with convention obligations  Evidence so far suggests that countries have used GEF support to introduce new policies and to support the requisite environmental legislation and regulatory frameworks  Challenge is to provide incentives to countries to collaborate on transboundary issues which are of global significance 14

15. Interim report: overview  The GEF in a changing world  The catalytic nature of the GEF  Progress toward Impact: from Hypothesis to Evidence  Programming Resources: the Challenge of Addressing Global and Transboundary Issues at the National Level  Toward Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness  The GEF as a learning organization  The Nature of the GEF: at a Crossroads? 15

16. Performance  Target for GEF-4: 75% of projects should score moderately satisfactory or higher on achievement of outcomes  OPS4 cohort of projects (2005-2008) has achieved 80% –Ratings have been triangulated with evaluation offices of GEF agencies, field verifications and other evaluative evidence  GEF activity cycle continues to be of great concern –Final report will contain analysis of PIF process  RAF mid-term review will be updated –Global/regional projects have reached historical level –Further analysis in final report 16

17. Interim report: overview  The GEF in a changing world  The catalytic nature of the GEF  Progress toward Impact: from Hypothesis to Evidence  Programming Resources: the Challenge of Addressing Global and Transboundary Issues at the National Level  Toward Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness  The GEF as a learning organization  The Nature of the GEF: at a Crossroads? 17

18. GEF as Learning Organization  GEF should be “well poised” to learn –STAP, M&E Policy, Catalytic role, Innovation  Challenges: –Relatively few efforts to learn across agencies –Insufficient recognition of catalytic role and lack of tracking tools –GEF is “thin on the ground” and strong at the top  Quality of M&E at project level has improved substantially –But baseline data continue to be a problem  On-going work for final report: –Inclusion of Peer review of Evaluation Function –Analysis of sample of projects 18

19. Interim report: overview  The GEF in a changing world  The catalytic nature of the GEF  Progress toward Impact: from Hypothesis to Evidence  Programming Resources: the Challenge of Addressing Global and Transboundary Issues at the National Level  Toward Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness  The GEF as a learning organization  The Nature of the GEF: at a Crossroads? 19

20. Structure of GEF  OPS3: GEF has reached limit of network organization  Inside and outside pressure has increased –New roles for GEF Secretariat and National Focal Points due to RAF –Paris declaration calls for harmonization and alignment with national priorities –Growing demand for direct access  Evaluative evidence so far suggests that the GEF needs to solve the tension in its network relationships to become a smooth and efficient operator, especially in identifying project ideas, programming of national support, and appraisal and approval. 20

21. Remaining work on TOR  Question 1: added value of the GEF  Question 7: feedback to conventions  Question 9: governance system of the GEF  Question 10: update of RAF mid-term review  Question 11: portfolio analysis and comparison studies leading to conclusions on efficiency and cost- effectiveness of the GEF; PIF analysis to understand causes for delays in project approval; analysis of global/regional projects and programmatic approaches  Question 12: GEF’s structure and division of roles and responsibilities  Question 14: learning at the project level and role of STAP  Question 16: management of human, financial and administrative resources in the GEF 21

22. Governance  The final OPS4 report will contain an assessment of the current governance structure and the role of its various components  On the replenishment process, current best practice in several recent replenishments has been to involve (non-donor) recipient countries as members of the process –The 15th replenishment of the International Development Association included nine borrower country members  The interim report recommends that non-donor recipient countries of the GEF should be included in the replenishment process –During the Council meeting examples were presented on inclusion of CSOs as observers 22

23. 23 AreaTeam Coordination Rob D. van den Berg, Claudio Volonte, Juan J. Portillo, Anna Viggh, Evelyn Chihuguyu RoleRob D. van den Berg, Holly Dublin, Ines Angulo, Meg Spearman Results David Todd, Sam Fujisaka, CDC Kenya, Baastel, Aaron Zazueta, Alan Fox, Lee Risby, Marina Gracco, Josh Brann, Susan Matambo, Rebecca Frischkorn, Meg Spearman, Timothy Ranja, Tommaso Balbo, Timothy Turner, Touchdown Canada, Shaista Ahmed RelevanceClaudio Volonte, Florentina Mulaj Performance Aaron Zazueta, Neeraj Negi, Sam Fujisaka, ICF Consulting, Ken Watson, Florentina Mulaj, Tommaso Balbo, Victoriya Kim, Brian Giacometti, John Markie, Yu-Kui Zhou, Rob D. van den Berg Peer Review of the Evaluation Function Independent Peer Review Panel Governance studyCarlos Pérez del Castillo ResourcesJohn Markie Portfolio AnalysisNeeraj Negi, Yu-Kui Zhou Stakeholder Consultations Juan J. Portillo, Rob D. van den Berg, David Todd, Aaron Zazueta, Sandra Romboli, Anna Viggh, Lee Risby, Soledad Mackinnon, Oswaldo Gómez, Holly Dublin, ICF Consulting, CSP, SGP, NGO Network, Carlos Pérez del Castillo, Marina Cracco, Elizabeth George, Evelyn Chihuguyu Country Case Studies Claudio Volonte, Aaron Zazueta, David Todd, Sandra Romboli, Neeraj Negi, Lee Risby, Anna Viggh, Soledad Mackinnon, Rob Craig, national consultants Communications & Publication Sandra Romboli, Soledad Mackinnon, Oswaldo Gomez Quality Assurance Peer Group Juha Uitto (UNDP); Ken Chomitz, Lauren Kelly, Richard Worden (IEG); Michael Spilsbury (UNEP); Johannes Dobinger (UNIDO); Rachel Bedouin, Bob Moore (FAO); Mala Hettige, Richard Bold (ADB) Senior Independent Evaluation Advisors Shekhar Singh, Bob Picciotto

24. Suggestions, comments, issues, questions? OPS4@thegef.org THANKS! 24