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.
This is the first stand-alone evaluation of the Global Environment Facility’s (GEF’s) support to mainstreaming biodiversity interventions. The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the overall performance and effectiveness of GEF biodiversity mainstreaming projects drawing on the portfolio and in-depth case studies conducted in Colombia, India and South Africa. The study is based on the evaluative evidence drawn from the portfolio analysis of 471 biodiversity mainstreaming related projects, and three country case studies looking at the experiences from GEF-3 through GEF-6.
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.
The African Biomes Strategic Country Cluster Evaluation (SCCE) covers GEF activities in 23 countries situated in two Sub-Saharan African biomes: the Sahel and the Sudan-Guinea Savanna. Selection of these two biomes is based on the countries’ comparable land-based environmental challenges. These countries also face challenges related to governance, demographics, migration, conflict and fragility, working as drivers for the environmental issues at hand. Most countries situated in the two biomes are Least Developed Countries (LDCs), and half are countries in fragile situations.
The strategic country cluster evaluation (SCCE) of small island developing states (SIDS) covers 39 SIDS in the AIMS (Atlantic, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean and South China Sea), Caribbean, and Pacific regions. The choice to evaluate the SIDS as a strategic cluster is based on their shared geophysical constraints, resulting in disproportionately large economic, social and environmental challenges, and is supported by Council members’ requests for a more in-depth reviewing of the SIDS portfolio of projects.
The strategic country cluster evaluation (SCCE) of least developed countries (LDCs) covers all 47 LDCs, located in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean. Selection of the LDCs for an SCCE is based on the countries’ common LDC status and related economic, social and environmental challenges. LDCs are low-income countries confronting severe structural impediments to sustainable development. They are highly vulnerable to economic and environmental shocks, have low levels of human assets, and almost half of the LDCs are countries in fragile situations.