Taking Deforestation out of Commodity Supply Chains IAP
The GEF Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) has been mandated to review the GEF-6 Integrated Approach Pilot (IAP) Program Framework. While the IAPs are comprised of three pilots , this Approach Paper pertains to the review of the Taking Deforestation out of Commodity Supply Chains pilot (Commodities IAP), recognizing that the other pilots pertaining to food security and sustainable cities are being reviewed simultaneously and separate approach papers. Given that many of the “child projects” under the Commodities IAP program are yet to be endorsed by the GEF-CEO at the time of this writing, this formative evaluation will focus primarily on the process and design aspects of the Commodities IAP Program.
The Commodities IAP program is designed through a supply chain lens for each of the three commodities - soy, beef and palm oil—and will support activities in four producing countries (Brazil, Paraguay, Liberia and Indonesia) and in demand markets (including local consumption and emerging economies). The expansion of commodity production and the associated deforestation is a result of complex national and international supply chains spanning from farmer to final consumer and involve many actors with diverse incentives and motivations. Recognizing this, the Commodities IAP intends to engage across multiple layers of interventions---from working on land use planning and government policies to bank and investor policies to corporate commitments and consumer awareness campaigns. The Commodities IAP will attempt to harness the power of the market to move commodity production away from its current unsustainable path and remove deforestation from commodity supply chains.
The purpose of this review is to critically assess the potential of the Commodities IAP to generate multiple GEBs by tackling the main drivers of environmental degradation– agricultural expansion in emerging markets leading to deforestation from commodities production. The objectives are to evaluate the consistency of the Commodities IAP design with GEF-6 focal area strategies, its alignment with convention guidance and its capacity to reflect synergies and integration in seeking solutions to agriculture-related deforestation, while accounting for country needs and ownership. The review will also look at the IAP initial uptake in participating countries and the efficiency of its launching process. This review is being undertaken as an input to the Sixth Comprehensive Evaluation of the GEF (Overall Performance Study – OPS-6). The team will use the Program’s basic tenets to critically assess the theory of change embodied in the IAP and its practical application in operations.
The review will look at the Commodities IAP Framework and Child projects from when the Program was first conceived at the beginning of GEF-6 to date. The following are the main questions the evaluation will aim to answer:
- To what extent does the integrated programming concept –as applied to the Commodities IAP– differ from previous GEF programmatic approaches, and provide additionality in terms of innovative approaches/processes/thinking and issues?
- To what extent does the Commodities IAP align with GEBs/Multi-Lateral Environmental Conventions/GEF Focal Areas?
- To what extent does the Commodities IAP make use of GEF and its Agencies’ comparative advantage?
- To what extent has gender been taken into account in the Commodities IAP design? To what extent has private sector (small holders to multinational companies) been incorporated in the design? Do governments play a key role in policy setting and leading governance on commodities, to what extent are Public-Private Partnerships being forged? To what extent have commodity traders been incorporated into the design? To what extent have other relevant national and international stakeholders been incorporated in the design?
- How efficiently has the start-up of the Commodities IAP been, and what has been the uptake by the target groups thus far?
- How has the set-aside, as a funding source for this IAP made use of co-financing leverage potential? Does this funding model enable integration or cohesiveness?
- To what extent are there mechanisms for scale up and replication of this IAP? What are the design features enabling knowledge capture? How is the design building on lessons from previous projects?