 |
April 2007 |
 |
News from the GEF Evaluation Office Recent Evaluations TheGEF Activity Cycle and Modalities The GEF cycle needs to be more efficient, effective, and cost-effective, according to a new evaluation report by the GEF Evaluation Office. The evaluation draws from extensive research: 17 country visits and almost 700 responses to an electronic survey, along with input from the evaluations offices of the GEF’s Implementing and Executing Agencies. The responses demonstrate that the length and complexity of the project cycle have not promoted a sense of national ownership and commitment. In addition, the evaluation points out that new modalities have grown because the regular project cycle is not able to respond flexibly to different needs. The GEF has accepted the evaluation’s recommendations and has committed to presenting a new project cycle to the Council in June 2007, aiming to reduce processing time from identification to implementation to less than 22 months. The evaluation stressed that the new project cycle should trim the detailed information required in the formulation and appraisal stages of the cycle; and ensure transparent identification of project eligibility and status of projects in the cycle.
Executing Agencies’ Experience with the GEF
The Executing Agencies’ portfolio of GEF projects is still young and small, according to a recent evaluation, despite the expanded opportunities offered in 1999 to seven Executing Agencies—African Development Bank (AfDB), Asian Development Bank (ADB), European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). These Agencies have not been involved as equal partners with the Implementing Agencies in the preparation of new GEF policies, strategies, and programs and in management of the GEF portfolio, the evaluation points out. The evaluation also raised the larger question of whether the GEF should set in motion a longer-term process of evaluating its core partnership philosophy and the consequences for the structure of the GEF. Since the evaluation came out, several changes have been implemented: Executing Agencies will be granted direct access to GEF funding based on their comparative advantages. For more information on the GEF Activity Cycle and Executing Agencies evaluations, including several technical papers, please visit the GEF Evaluation Office website www.thegef.org in the Publications section, under Joint Evaluation; or contact Siv Tokle, stokle@thegef.org. Assessing Incrementality For many country stakeholders, the operationalization of the incremental costs principle, through incremental costs assessment has been one of the ‘black boxes’ of the GEF project cycle. They have expressed confusion about the interpretation of incremental cost assessment. In previous evaluations, they have reported the lack of transparency of the assessment process, which is often dominated by international consultants. To respond to these concerns, the Evaluation Office proposed in June 2005 in agreement with the Council that a focused evaluation of incremental costs assessment be undertaken in GEF projects and what can be learned from applying incremental costs assessment so far. After assessment of all projects approved in 2005 and field visits to Kenya, Panama, and Thailand, the evaluation, which was completed in November 2006, provided four major conclusions with regard to incremental costs. Firstly, and most importantly, that the principle of incremental funding is alive and well in the GEF projects. Secondly, the process of assessment (as distinct from reasoning) does not influence project GEF grant or cofinancing funding decisions and is usually retrofitted after these amounts have been determined with little or no negotiation with countries. Thirdly, there is weak understanding and confusion of incremental costs concepts and procedures. Following on from this the fourth conclusion showed that most projects are not compliant with the incremental costs policy and multiple sets of guidelines. These findings and recommendations were presented to the Council in December 2006. It was concluded that the current process for incremental cost assessment and reporting does not add any value to the quality of the projects. At the end of the discussion, the Council decided that the incremental reasoning in project objectives and design should be explicitly addressed in appropriate documentation; that the current incremental cost assessment and reporting requirements for GEF proposals should be reformed; that progress towards achieving global environmental benefits and for achieving cofinancing should be monitored throughout the life of the project, particularly at the end of the project. The reforming incremental costs assessment and reporting is now the task of the GEF Secretariat and they have been requested to present the reforms at the June 2007 Council as part of the revised project activity cycle. New Activities GEF and UNDP Jointly Evaluate Small Grants Programme
Created in 1992, the Small Grants Programme (SGP) has always functioned as a window for the direct financing of initiatives of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), community based organizations, and other local community organizations with the objective of generating global environmental results in ways that address country sustainable development priorities. The SGP also seeks to reach the poor and marginal populations, such as women and indigenous populations. The GEF together with the UNDP Evaluation Offices has initiated an evaluation of SGP, running from January through September 2007. The evaluation is focusing on assessing the relevance, effectiveness (results), and efficiency of the SGP as well as concepts and processes used by the SGP to further its objectives. The evaluation will rely on portfolio review and country studies, including desk reviews, field visits, and teleconferences. The joint evaluation will address three questions: Relevance: To what extent is the SGP relevant to the GEF’s mandate and operations and to country sustainable development and environmental priorities? Effectiveness: To what extent has the SGP contributed to the generation of global environmental benefits? Efficiency/cost-effectiveness: To what extent is the SGP an efficient and effective instrument for linking the GEF with community groups and NGOs working with the poor and marginal populations? For more information and the approach paper, please visit the GEF Evaluation Office website www.thegef.org in the Ongoing Evaluation section. Please send any comments to SGPevaluation@thegef.org. Getting Ready for First International Workshop on Environmental and Sustainable Development Evaluation
The Evaluation Office has begun preparations for the first International Workshop on Environmental and Sustainable Development Evaluation. Scheduled for early 2008 in Alexandria, Egypt, the workshop will discuss experiences in evaluating sustainable development projects and focus attention on mitigation and adaptation to climate change issues. The Evaluation Office is partnering with the French GEF, International Development Evaluation Association, IUCN, and the Bibliotheca Alexandrina in Egypt, as well as with donors and civil society groups on regional activities that would help identify relevant evaluation skills. Last year, the GEF Council provided an initial funding for the workshop proposal that has increased over the last months. These resources will allow the smooth implementation of most activities, particularly in those regions where evaluation skills are missing or have not been properly identified. Along these lines, the Evaluation Office is planning on regional activities in Central Asia and networking with other partners in Africa and Latin America for such activities. Those joint efforts are expected to pave the way for an independent network of evaluators that donors and development agencies would be able to draw upon for their evaluations. For more information, please contact Oswaldo Leon Gomez Rodriguez, ogomezrodriguez@thegef.org.
|
|
