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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
During the GEF-5 replenishment negotiations it was agreed that, within the framework of paragraph 28 of the GEF Instrument, the GEF partnership needs to be broadened further to enhance country ownership in the GEF operation and to provide recipient countries greater choice in terms of agencies with which they work. At the request of GEF Council, GEF Independent Evaluation Office (GEF IEO) conducted a Process Evaluation of the Expansion of the GEF Partnership to assess the design, transparency and efficiency related aspects of the accreditation process.
In September 2005, the GEF Council agreed to implement a resource allocation framework for the GEF 4 replenishment period. Implementation of the resource allocation framework started in 2006 and it covered biodiversity and climate change focal areas. During its implementation, several weaknesses in its design such as group allocations for some countries, a 50 percent ceiling on resource utilization within first two years of replenishment period, and inadequacy of set-asides, became apparent.
This evaluation is a formative review of the three Integrated Approach Pilots introduced in GEF-6. They were designed to implement integrated programming as a means of achieving systemic change at scale by addressing the major drivers of global environmental degradation in a holistic way. They are: