The objectives of the KM study were to assess the role of the GEF as a knowledge broker and provider, and the relevance and effectiveness of knowledge management and sharing across the GEF partnership. The overall purpose was to identify any eventual systemic issues that need to be addressed in planning for GEF-7.
Scope and Key Questions
Building on the conspicuous body of available evaluative evidence, the study looked at KM in the GEF in the period since the start of GEF-5 in 2009 to date. The following were the main questions the study aimed to answer:
The Sixth Comprehensive Evaluation of the GEF (OPS6) (GEF/ME/C.50/07) aims to report on the progress towards achieving gender mainstreaming and women’s empowerment. The overarching OPS6 evaluative question is “to what extent have gender issues and evaluation of its effectiveness been mainstreamed into GEF’s work since the development of its gender policy?” The objectives of the OPS6 Sub-study on Gender Mainstreaming in the GEF are to:
This study seeks to provide insights and lessons on the Global Environment Facility (GEF) adaptation portfolio for the GEF-7 replenishment cycle. It assesses the Special Climate Change Fund’s (SCCF’s) efficacy, results, successes, and shortcomings through a thorough evaluation of the portfolio.
This evaluation will be framed according to the OECD/DAC guiding criteria for evaluation: Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Results/Impact and Sustainability. Reflecting expectations that supported initiatives and interventions do not harm the environment or people, this evaluation will address both policy alignment and operational procedures related to the GEF Minimum Standards, and strive to answer the following key questions:
The main purpose of the programmatic approaches evaluation was to assess whether and how GEF support delivered under the programmatic approaches modality has produced the expected results in terms of global environmental benefits while addressing the main drivers of global environmental change.
This evaluation is a formative review of the three Integrated Approach Pilots introduced in GEF-6. They were designed to implement integrated programming as a means of achieving systemic change at scale by addressing the major drivers of global environmental degradation in a holistic way. They are:
Multiple benefits generated through GEF support consist of two types: the global environmental benefits (GEBs) that contribute towards achieving the strategic priorities of multiple focal areas, and the local environmental and socioeconomic benefits that indirectly generate and sustain the GEBs. One way that GEF has sought to create multiple benefits in a more integrated manner is through multi-focal area (MFA) projects. These projects are funded through allocations from different global environmental conventions and/ or trust funds, and track indicators specific to each focal area.
Comparative Advantage, Adequacy of Funding / Financing, Health of the Expanded GEF Partnership and Governance Structure
This evaluation addressed three key components of the Sixth Comprehensive Evaluation of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) (OPS6): the comparative advantage of the GEF as a funding channel, the adequacy of donor funding/financing, and the current governance structure and health of the expanded partnership of the GEF.
The Sixth Comprehensive Evaluation of the GEF (OPS6) is being undertaken to inform the GEF-7 replenishment on the results and performance of the GEF Partnership and of the activities that the partnership supports, and on areas for further improvement. OPS6 aims to assess two broad areas: (1) institutional, governance, strategy and programming issues, and (2) the performance and impact of the GEF. The GEF IEO conducted a review of the project level accomplishments, as one of the activities to assess the GEF performance and impact.
In September 2005, the GEF Council agreed to implement a resource allocation framework for the GEF 4 replenishment period. Implementation of the resource allocation framework started in 2006 and it covered biodiversity and climate change focal areas. During its implementation, several weaknesses in its design such as group allocations for some countries, a 50 percent ceiling on resource utilization within first two years of replenishment period, and inadequacy of set-asides, became apparent.