S ignposts Fifth Overall Performance Study of the GEF May 2014 Final Report: At the Crossroads for Higher Impact The Final Report of the Fifth (including multitrust fund projects) accounted for $1.21 bil- Overall Performance Study lion (42 percent). (OPS5) of the Global Environ- Since GEF-4 (2006–10), the United Nations Development ment Facility (GEF) was pre- Programme has held the largest share of GEF funding, sented at the May 2014 GEF at over 40 percent. The World Bank has around 25 per- Council meeting in Cancun. cent, and the United Nations Environment Programme has OPS5 is a comprehensive evaluation that assesses the 10 percent; the other Agencies account for the remaining performance, institutional effectiveness, and impact of the 25 percent. Major shifts in the share of funding among GEF. OPSs are undertaken to inform the next replenish- Agencies took place in GEF-4, when new Agencies became ment cycle of the GEF and to identify potential improve- visible in GEF projects. Asia, with 30 percent of GEF-5 ments. funding, continues to receive the largest share of funding by region. Spending in Africa continues to decline in terms Overview of the GEF Portfolio of the GEF Trust Fund, but its share of adaptation funds The GEF Fund is the primary source of funds for grants from all GEF-administered funds increased to 27 percent. made by the GEF, but it also provides funding through the Compared to GEF-4, funding to fragile countries has nearly Least Developed Countries Fund, the Special Climate doubled, while funding to small island developing states has Change Fund, and the Nagoya Protocol Implementation increased by 63 percent, and that to landlocked countries Fund. As of September 30, 2013, the GEF had provided a by 17 percent. total of $13.02 billion through these trust funds using four basic modalities: full-size projects, medium-size projects, Approach and Scope enabling activities, and the Small Grants Programme (SGP). During GEF-5 (2010–14), full-size projects accounted for The evaluation approach taken for OPS5 is theory based 86 percent of GEF funding, and medium-size projects and follows a mixed methods approach. OPS5 draws on accounted for 4 percent. evidence from 33 evaluations and studies undertaken by the GEF Independent Evaluation Office since OPS4, and Climate change and biodiversity projects each account 21 substudies, as well as reviews of terminal evaluations for about a third of the GEF Trust Fund funding utilized. of 491 completed projects. It incorporates country-level The share of funding for international waters projects has evidence from 54 countries, and from visits to 118 full- and fluctuated, while remaining stable for land degradation and medium-size projects,as well as to 92 SGP projects. The rising for persistent organic pollutants. full GEF portfolio of 3,566 projects since its inception has been included in the analysis, with specific attention to the Increased support for programmatic approaches within 969 projects approved since OPS4. the GEF has led to a growing trend toward multifocal area projects during GEF-5. These are projects that address environmental objectives relevant to more than one GEF Conclusions and Recommendations focal area, and receive funding accordingly. As of Septem- Conclusion 1: Global environmental trends continue to ber 30, 2013, $2.82 billion of the GEF-5 focal area pro- decline. The replenishment may show no increase in gramming had been utilized, of which multifocal projects purchasing power, while the GEF has accepted more Fifth Overall Performance Study of the GEF Final Report: At the Crossroads for Higher Impact S ignposts obligations. The GEF has accepted a major new commit- Conclusion 3: The intervention logic of the GEF is cata‑ ment in becoming a key financial instrument to the Minamata lytic and successful in achieving impact over time. The Convention on Mercury. Meeting increasing obligations with different focal areas have the intervention logic in common, the same replenishment amount will reduce the speed with which is based on the generic GEF theory of change. Many which impact is achieved. of the GEF’s projects continue to deliver excellent outcomes and show evidence of progress toward impact and broader Recommendation 1: Resource mobilization and stra‑ adoption. Furthermore, a majority would not have occurred tegic choices in the GEF need to reflect the urgency of without a catalytic GEF contribution. global environmental problems. Actions can be taken to encourage donors to contribute to the GEF without being Recommendation 3: To maximize results, the inter‑ constrained by inflexible pro rata burden-sharing arrange- vention model of the GEF needs to be applied where ments. Broadening the financing basis should also be it is most needed and supported by a better business explored and should include inviting the European Com- model.More attention must be paid to activities that mission to become a donor. A no-risk soft pipeline should boost broader adoption of GEF initiatives by govern‑ be initiated as it would provide a one-time speeding up of up ments and other stakeholders. Civil society and the private to $400 million in transfers to recipient countries. sector should be involved in projects, programs, national and regional priority setting, and analysis. Furthermore, the Conclusion 2: The business model of the GEF is no lon‑ GEF must strengthen the strategic role of the Scientific and ger appropriate and leads to growing inefficiencies. The Technical Advisory Panel, revitalize the SGP Steering Com- GEF project cycle is slow, and the GEF network is complex mittee, adopt an action plan to implement the GEF Gender and overburdened. Mainstreaming Policy, and implement the knowledge man- Recommendation 2: The business model of the GEF agement and capacity development strategy. needs major overhaul in the GEF‑6 period. The GEF should shift cofinancing considerations to programming and to the GEF Chief Executive Officer endorsement and GEF Agency approval stages of the project cycle. The GEF net- work should redefine the inclusion of partners at decision points, focusing on Council and country-level decisions. The clearance requirements for concepts should be reduced, and the work program should be published on a no-objection The GEF Independent Evaluation Office is an independent entity basis. A new GEF business model should include a revital- reporting directly to the GEF Council, mandated to evaluate the focal area programs and priorities of the GEF. The full version of ized public involvement policy, a results-based management Fifth Overall Performance Study of the GEF Final Report: At the framework based on a limited number of outcome indicators, Crossroads for Higher Impact (Evaluation Report No. 86), along a corporate strategy for the SGP, and a shift of the Scientific with its supporting documents, is available on the GEF Indepen- dent Evaluation Office website, www.gefeo.org. For more infor- and Technical Advisory Panel’s role from screening projects mation, please contact the Office at gefevaluation@thegef.org. to screening programs and portfolios.