IEO conducts accountability and learning-focused evaluations that generate lessons learned for the GEF. The evaluations focus on results, impact and performance of the GEF, and address strategic issues of the partnership.
Overall Performance Studies (OPS) are performed every four years to provide solid evaluative evidence to donors. These evaluations provide an independent assessment of performance and results of the GEF over a GEF replenishment period. The comprehensive evaluations assess the extent to which the GEF is achieving its objectives and identify potential areas of improvement.
This review of the GEF Policy on Agency Minimum Standards on Environmental and Social Safeguards (2011) aims to provide insights and lessons for GEF7 replenishment cycle, focused on four 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.
The approach paper for the Sixth Comprehensive Evaluation (OPS6) of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) specified results-based management (RBM) as one of the topics to be covered by the evaluation. This review of RBM has been undertaken within the framework of OPS6 and is an input to the valuation. The review assesses the extent to which the GEF RBM system captures key results of GEF activities and promotes adaptive management.
The overall purpose of the Sixth Comprehensive Evaluation of the GEF (also known as OPS6) is to provide solid evaluative evidence to inform the negotiations for the seventh replenishment of the GEF. Following the objectives of the previous overall performance studies, the objective is to assess the extent to which the GEF is achieving its objectives as laid down in the GEF Instrument and reviews by the Assembly, as developed and adopted by the GEF Council in operational policies and programs for GEF financed activities, and to identify potential improvements going forward.
The IEO presented a comprehensive study of private sector engagement.
The purpose of this study was to assess the Global Environment Facility’s private sector engagement activities and provide insights and lessons leading to recommendations to strengthen the GEF’s collaboration with the private sector in GEF-7.
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:
Guidelines for GEF Agencies in Conducting Terminal Evaluation for Full-sized Projects provide information to the GEF Agencies and evaluators on how they should conduct terminal evaluations for completed full sized projects funded by the GEF. The guidelines expand on the minimum requirement 3 of the M&E Policy (2010) which covers evaluation of completed projects and programs. The new guidelines update and replace the Guidelines for GEF Agencies in Conducting Terminal Evaluations (2008).
Country portfolio evaluations (CPEs) conducted by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) Independent Evaluation Office (GEF-IEO) use the country as the unit of analysis to examine the totality of GEF support across all GEF Agencies and programs.
On request by the GEF Council at its 47th meeting in October 2014, the GEF IEO launched the evaluation of the GEF Civil Society Organization (CSO) Network. The evaluation reviewed the Network’s performance, relevance, effectiveness and results in promoting knowledge dissemination and CSO involvement in GEF policies and programs. The evaluation assessed network performance in the context of other forms by which the GEF engages with civil society.
This study provides insights on the Global Environment Facility (GEF) adaptation portfolio for the GEF-7 replenishment cycle. It assesses the Least Developed Country Fund’s (LDCF’s) efficacy and results for successes and shortcomings in a thorough portfolio evaluation. It provides evidence on progress toward LDCF objectives, major achievements, and lessons learned.