The purpose of the joint evaluation of the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) was to assess the results and lessons learned from the operations of the LDCF (including countries, agencies, donors, and Secretariat) in financing and promoting adaptation in Least Developed Countries (LDCs). The evaluation team consisted of staff from the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and the Danish consulting firm COWI, and the management team was drawn from the GEFEO and the Evaluation Office of DANIDA.
The first annual impact report includes an explanation of two parallel evaluation approaches developed and tested by the Global Environment Facility’s Evaluation Office (GEFEO): i) a theory-based approach to link outcomes to impact in three protected area projects in Bwindi-Mgahinga, Lewa, and at cross-border sites in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda; and ii) a statistical analysis of existing time-series data on deforestation and protected areas in Costa Rica.
This midterm review evaluates the degree to which resources have been allocated to countries in a transparent and cost-effective manner based on global environmental benefits and country performance. While it is too early to provide evidence on the impact of the RAF on environmental benefits, it emerged that the transition to a new way of providing GEF resources has been challenging.
The First Professional Peer Review of the Evaluation Function in the GEF was completed in May 2009. The Review provided the GEF Council, the Assembly, the GEF Secretariat and the Independent Evaluation Office with an independent assessment of the functioning of the GEF EO and the quality of its work.
Cameroon has been receiving GEF funds since 1992 via 10 national projects. About 71 per cent of funding has gone to support biodiversity projects, 25 per cent in land degradation, with the remainder split between climate change and persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Cameroon was selected for evaluation for reasons including the significant work in forest conservation and its importance as a global biodiversity hotspot. Main findings and recommendations were presented to the GEF Council as a part of the Annual Country Portfolio Evaluation Report 2009 (ACPER 2009).
The GEF Fourth Annual Performance Report (APR) 2007, presented and prepared by the GEF Evaluation Office, focuses on completed projects for which terminal evaluations were submitted during fiscal year 2007. The full report provides an assessment of project outcomes, project sustainability, project completion delays, materialization of cofinancing, and the quality of monitoring in completed projects. The report’s main focus is on terminal evaluations from 41 projects submitted in FY2007, accounting for $199 million in GEF funding.
Benin has received GEF funds since 1991 and was selected in particular for evaluation due to its status as one of the world’s least developed countries and its advanced work on the National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA). The Benin CPE focused on 13 national projects and 5 regional ones. All GEF focal areas are represented in the projects under evaluation. The main findings and recommendations of this evaluation were presented to the GEF Council in April 2008 as a part of the Annual Country Portfolio Evaluation Report (ACPER 2008).
Madagascar has been receiving GEF funds since 1994; 97 per cent of financing has supported biodiversity projects with the remainder supporting projects in the climate change and persistent organic pollutants (POPs) focal areas. Madagascar was selected because of its large portfolio size, its programmatic approach, the portfolio emphasis on biodiversity, and its importance as a global biodiversity hotspot. The main findings and recommendations were presented to the GEF Council in April 2008 as a part of the Annual Country Portfolio Evaluation Report (ACPER 2008).
South Africa began receiving GEF support in 1994. The country was chosen to receive a CPE based on its large and diverse portfolio and its large allocation under the Resource Allocation Framework, which is based on the importance of South Africa's global biodiversity and also on its dependence on fossil fuels.