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.
Madagascar has been receiving GEF funds since 1994; 97 per cent of financing has supported biodiversity projects with the remainder supporting projects in the climate change and persistent organic pollutants (POPs) focal areas. Madagascar was selected because of its large portfolio size, its programmatic approach, the portfolio emphasis on biodiversity, and its importance as a global biodiversity hotspot. The main findings and recommendations were presented to the GEF Council in April 2008 as a part of the Annual Country Portfolio Evaluation Report (ACPER 2008).
South Africa began receiving GEF support in 1994. The country was chosen to receive a CPE based on its large and diverse portfolio and its large allocation under the Resource Allocation Framework, which is based on the importance of South Africa's global biodiversity and also on its dependence on fossil fuels.
In June 2006, the Global Evaluation Facility (GEF) Council requested that the GEF Evaluation Office undertake an independent evaluation of the Small Grants Programme (SGP). The GEF Evaluation Office invited the Evaluation Office of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to participate in the evaluation, given that UNDP implements, and is strongly involved in, the SGP.
The GEF Third Annual Performance Report (APR) 2006, presented and prepared by the GEF Evaluation Office, focuses on completed projects for which terminal evaluations were submitted during fiscal year 2006. The full report provides an assessment of project outcomes, project sustainability, project completion delays, materialization of cofinancing, and the quality of monitoring in completed projects. The report’s main focus is on terminal evaluations from 66 projects submitted in FY2006, accounting for $255 million in GEF funding.
The Philippines is one of the largest recipients of GEF support, with allocations in both climate change and biodiversity, and a well-established GEF Small Grants Programme. The environment sector is an essential part of the country's sustainable development agenda.
Samoa has been receiving GEF funds since the GEF’s pilot phase. It was selected for country portfolio evaluation because it represents two groups of countries that are highly relevant to the GEF; small island developing states (SIDS) of the Pacific, and least developed countries (LDCs). Also, it has a diverse portfolio and well-established environmental sector. The main findings and recommendations of this evaluation were presented to the GEF Council in June 2007.
Costa Rica was the site of the pilot CPE. The country was selected because of its broad GEF portfolio, the types of GEF support, the engagement of implementing and executing agencies and the country's long experience with environmental issues. The success of this pilot evaluation convinced the GEF to continue conducting CPEs in other countries.
When a project is closing, the Implementing or Executing Agency conducts a terminal evaluation. The main purpose of such evaluations is to review the implementation process and achievement of results and draw lessons.
The Guidelines for Terminal Evaluations provide guidance on how to conduct such final project evaluations, based on the GEF M&E policy.
The GEF Independent Evaluation Office Ethical Guidelines provide guidance to its staff and consultants on ethical behavior to ensure that evaluations are free of bias, transparent, and considerate of stakeholder rights and interests.
The ethical guidelines contain specific provisions to prevent conflict of interest on three levels: institutional, staff, and consultants hired to contribute to evaluations. The guidelines will be periodically revised in the light of experience and comments received from external review.