This analysis brings together economists, computer scientists and geographers with expertise in remote sensing and impact evaluation to apply a value for money (VFM) assessment to the case of GEF Land Degradation (LD) projects. Leveraging methodological approaches to causal identification that have not previously been applied to the study of Land Degradation, this report explicitly quantifies (1) the causally-identified impact attributable to GEF LD project locations using three indicators (capturing vegetation productivity, forest fragmentation, and forest cover change), and (2) the VFM resultant from these impacts of GEF LD projects in terms of carbon sequestration.
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.
As part of the Sixth Comprehensive Evaluation of the GEF (OPS6), the Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) has undertaken two studies in the Biodiversity Focal Area – a) an evaluation of the GEF funded projects on Access and benefit sharing (ABS) and the Nagoya Protocol (NP), and b) a study to assess GEF support to address illegal wildlife trade (IWT) through the GEF Global Wildlife Program (GWP). These two studies are the first conducted by the IEO on these themes. The Impact Evaluation of the GEF Support to Protected Areas (PAs) and PA Systems was completed in October 2015.
This evaluation examines how GEF-funded projects in six different countries led to changes in national legislative statutes and regulations.
The main purpose of this study was to provide insight and lessons for GEF’s climate change support moving forward, by assessing the relevance, results, effectiveness, and lessons learned through GEF support to the issues of climate change mitigation and adaptation. The findings of this study and other complementary GEF Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) evaluations will feed into the Sixth Comprehensive Evaluation of the GEF. This report specifically provides:
Comparative Advantage, Adequacy of Funding / Financing, Health of the Expanded GEF Partnership and Governance Structure 2017
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.
This study is the first comprehensive study of the Chemicals and Waste (CW) focal area undertaken by the Global Environment Facility’s (GEF) Independent Evaluation Office (IEO), encompassing the GEF’s grant funding for activities focused on persistent organic pollutants (POPs), ozone depleting substances (ODS), mercury, and sound chemical management more generally. The GEF serves as the Financial Mechanism for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and for the Minamata Convention on Mercury.
The Global Environment Facility/United Nations Industrial Development Organization (GEF/UNIDO) Global Cleantech Innovation Programme (GCIP) for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) seeks to encourage cleantech entrepreneurial solutions for pressing environmental and economic challenges, particularly climate change. The purpose of this Evaluation of the GCIP is to provide stakeholders (GEF Council, GEF Secretariat, participating country Operational Focal Points, and UNIDO) with insights into the program and lessons for similar future projects/programs.
Since its inception in 1992, the GEF has been at the forefront of leveraging local investments to achieve global impact. Yet. accounting for the GEF’s additionality – additional benefits that are attributable to the GEF – has remained a challenge.