Annual Performance Report (APR) 2015

Date:
May 2016
Document status:
Unedited
Document type:
Report
Evaluation number:
109
Evaluation type:
Annual Performance Report (APR)
IEO grouping:
Performance
Full Report:

APR 2015 provided a detailed overview of the performance of GEF activities and processes, key factors affecting performance, and Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) within the GEF partnership. It also provided an in-depth assessment on the GEF tracking tools

The key findings of APR 2015 are:

  1. Seventy-five percent of the projects and 74 percent of the funding for the APR 2015 cohort, is in projects with outcome ratings in the satisfactory range. These figures are lower than the average of 81 percent of projects and 79 percent of funding in the satisfactory range for the projects covered in previous APRs. A major reason for the slightly lower ratings for the FY 2015 cohort is a higher representation of projects from the Africa region, which tend to have lower outcome ratings. Projects implemented in Small Island Developing States have, on average, lower outcome ratings than other projects, and Medium sized projects have on average higher ratings than full size projects.
  2. Sixty-seven percent of projects of the APR 2015 cohort, and 70 percent of funding is in projects with sustainability rated moderately likely or higher. An increase in sustainability ratings is noted when examining sustainability ratings by GEF replenishment period, with a significant increase in GEF-4.
  3. The quality of implementation ratings are steady at 77 percent, but a lower percentage of APR 2015 cohort is rated in the satisfactory range on the quality of execution (at 72 percent for APR 2015 cohort versus 81 percent for the cumulative total).
  4. In the APR 2015 cohort, 55 percent projects were rated in the satisfactory range for M&E design and 52 percent for M&E during implementation. Ratings on M&E v Implementation have improved from the Pilot phase, however progress from GEF-1 has been incremental. About 30 percent of completed GEF-4 projects have unsatisfactory M&E Design and Implementation ratings indicating that a sizable gap still exists between M&E expectations and practice.
  5. Compared to GEF-5, the focal tracking tools for GEF-6 are leaner and better aligned with the focal area results framework indicators. Although tracking tools for the Biodiversity focal area have also been streamlined, they still account for the most number of data fields. Although there has been some progress in reducing the tracking tool reporting related burden for the multi focal area projects, it has been through the streamlining of the tools for individual focal areas. There are gaps in compliance, retrieval and management of tracking tools. The Secretariat is taking steps to facilitate better tracking of the submission of the tools.
  6. Ratings for quality of terminal evaluations in the APR 2015 cohort are lower on average than in previous years (73 percent rated satisfactory), driven in part by medium sized projects. Seventy-nine percent of medium size projects are rated in the satisfactory range for the quality of terminal evaluations, as compared with and eighty-four percent for full size projects.

Data Overview