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.
In June 2005, the GEF Council welcomed the proposed evaluation to assess the efficiency of the GEF activity cycle and modalities, and underscored that efforts to improve the cycle had so far not succeeded: “the project cycle elapsed times are still too long.” The evaluation was approved as a special initiative of the GEF Evaluation Office: to analyze the strengths and weaknesses in the GEF Activity Cycle and related delivery modalities, and uncover the underlying causes of inefficiencies.
The catalytic role of the GEF is reflected in the GEF Operational Strategy (OS, 1994) as one of 10 Operational Principles for the development and implementation of the GEF Work Program. This evaluation points the difficulties in implementing and assessing this principle and explores in more depth various approaches to the GEF catalytic role and its implications.
Capacity development is a major priority within the global environmental conventions. This evaluation assessed the capacity activities and modalities supported by the GEF.
At its November 2004 meeting the GEF Council requested the GEF Evaluation Office to initiate an evaluation of the biosafety activities financed under the GEF’s Initial Strategy. This report presents the results of this evaluation.
The evaluation contains many valuable findings that will allow the GEF to improve and adapt its support. For example, it was found that countries that already had considerable experience with biosafety issues were better able to utilize the support.
This study analyzes the relationship between local benefits and global environment benefits in the GEF covering 132 GEF projects, including 18 field case studies. The study concentrated only on those GEF projects that had stated objectives to generate local benefits as an essential mechanism in achieving their intended global benefits. The study focused on the role of benefits at the local level: that is, the geographical area directly affected by the intervention.
This report on “Biodiversity Indicators for Monitoring GEF Programme Implementation and Impacts” was prepared for the Global Environment Facility (GEF) by staff of the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC). The work was commissioned by the GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Team.
The aim of this evaluation is twofold. Firstly, to assess the degree to which the UNEP-GEF Toolkits, used for the development of National Biosafety Frameworks (NBFs) are consistent with the Cartagena Protocol, responsive to country needs, and of sufficient professional quality. Secondly, to get a good overview of what the general issues/difficulties are that respondents encountered during the process of setting up a
National Biosafety Framework.
The Program Study on International Waters 2005 had three major objectives: an assessment of the impacts and results of the IW Focal Area to the protection of transboundary water ecosystems; an assessment of the approaches, strategies, and tools by which results were achieved; and identification of lessons learned and formulation of recommendations to improve GEF IW operations.
The climate change program study evaluates performance and results, and how results were achieved. Given the size of the GEF portfolio and the need to identify overall lessons, this study focuses on outcomes and impacts of groups of mitigation projects, rather than detailed or immediate project outputs.
The objective of the Biodiversity Program Study is to provide the GEF Council, the GEF Secretariat and its Biodiversity Team, the GEF Biodiversity Task Force, and the general biodiversity community with an assessment of how the GEF Biodiversity Program is performing and recommendations on how to continue its development. In addition, the study provides information on how the GEF implements its biodiversity focal area, discusses the difficulties in measuring achievements and impacts in this focal area, and presents some ideas on the way forward.