S ignposts GEF Country Portfolio Study: El Salvador (1994–2010) February 2012 68264 From October 2010 to April The GEF has supported the Ministry of Environment and 2011, the Evaluation Office of Natural Resources (known by its Spanish acronym, MARN) the Global Environment Facil- in complying with its international obligations under the con- Anna B. Viggh ity (GEF) conducted a country ventions. Through enabling activities, the GEF has helped portfolio study of GEF support to El Salvador for the period El Salvador organize its environmental management within 1994–2010. the GEF focal areas by supporting the country’s formulation of its first biodiversity strategy and its generation of inputs Country portfolio studies are a new modality for the Evalu- for strategies to be devised for dealing with climate change ation Office; they are intended to complement the coun- and persistent organic pollutants. The GEF has not made try portfolio evaluations that are one of the Office’s main any significant contributions toward the strengthening or evaluation streams of work. Specifically, country portfolio generation of El Salvador’s environmental legal framework. studies provide additional coverage of country portfolios, Its main contribution has been to provide inputs for the Law but with a reduced focus and scope. They are undertaken on Protected Natural Areas approved in 2005. The GEF’s where opportunities exist to collaborate with independent contribution has been limited with regard to strengthening El evaluation offices of GEF partners as they undertake Salvador’s institutional framework, with its support consist- country evaluations. They thus enable the Office to study ing of financing enabling activities for capacity building in a country’s GEF portfolio with a relatively lower investment climate change and biodiversity. of cost and effort; this also reduces the evaluation bur- den on the country while insights and understanding are The GEF has made an important contribution toward gained through information exchange and collaboration. capacity building in environmental management within the MARN. GEF support of enabling activities has helped The El Salvador initiative was the first country portfolio create capacities for use in surveying and systematizing study undertaken by the Office; it was conducted in collab- oration with the United Nations Development Programme. environmental information for decision-making purposes. Since 1994, the GEF has invested about $11.4 million, Methodological working guidelines have been established— with about $22.7 million in cofinancing, in El Salvador. for example, for identifying priorities and in surveying. The GEF funding has been provided through 11 national proj- GEF also has contributed to generating capacity for design- ects. Biodiversity and climate change account for the larg- ing instruments and guidance materials. And, through sup- est shares of funding—82 and 12 percent of total support, port of project preparation and subsequent implementation, respectively. the GEF has helped build capacity for identifying global/ national environmental benefits and using tools for planning and monitoring. Many projects have benefited from this Findings capacity building, in terms of the close monitoring provided Effectiveness by the ministry. The GEF has played an important role in supporting El Salvador in complying with its obligations under One problem that remains regarding capacity building the relevant global conventions and in the generation entails the rotation of trained personnel; such rotation of national strategies, but its contribution has been hinders continuity of project preparation and monitoring, smaller in strengthening the country’s legal framework. and obliges the GEF Agencies to provide constant training GEF Country Portfolio Study: El Salvador (1994–2010) S ignposts in GEF requirements. Another drawback reported by the has been adequate. The selection process for Small Grants authorities is that various implementers have been exter- Programme proposals is considered efficient in terms of the nal consultants, which has diminished the possibility of amount of time taken; however, the analysis of national and building internal capacities. global benefits needs to entail a cost-benefit assessment of the outcomes obtained. The global benefits achieved by GEF projects are still modest or uncertain. The majority of the country’s national and regional projects are at an early stage of execution, Lessons making determination of global benefits premature. In the � Depending on their individual perspective, communities case of completed projects, the information necessary for either see the MARN environmental authority as a part- verifying the scope of benefits achieved is not available. ner in or an obstacle to environmental management. � A project’s effectiveness and efficiency (cost-benefit) Relevance in generating global benefits are directly related to the The GEF contribution has been relevant to El Salva- technical quality of the project interventions. dor’s environmental priorities, the mandate of the inter- national conventions, and the GEF mandate, except � The lack of procedures for systematizing and communi- with regard to combating land degradation. The actions cating successful projects can result in positive or nega- undertaken have been consistent with existing environmen- tive effects when they are replicated in other contexts. tal problems and have successfully focused on policy issues � The requirements connected with cofinancing loans within the GEF‘s mandate—especially regarding biodiver- can prevent adequate attention being given to GEF pri- sity, mitigation of climate change, and persistent organic ority requirements. pollutants. There is less congruence regarding international � Lack of an integrated approach diminishes capacity to waters and adaptation to climate change, and GEF activi- obtain global and national environmental benefits. ties are not addressing land degradation at all. � Greater connectivity between protected areas and Efficiency areas where coffee is produced using environmentally Efficiency in proposal preparation has improved friendly methods could decrease inbreeding in isolated but weak points remain, and the efficiency of project and low-mobility populations and enhance the value of implementation is variable. In terms of the length of time coffee certification as a tool for biodiversity conserva- required in the project preparation process up to approval, tion. efficiency has improved in the latest cycles (GEF-3 and GEF-4); this result is due to national capacity building cou- pled with improvement of the GEF guidelines. Among the weaknesses that have affected the efficiency of proposal The GEF Evaluation Office is an independent entity reporting directly to the GEF Council, mandated to evaluate the focal area preparation are staff rotation within the MARN and the lim- programs and priorities of the GEF. ited time available on the part of the GEF focal point. Effi- The full version of Estudio de la cartera de proyectos del FMAM en ciency as measured in terms of preparation costs has been El Salvador (1994–2010) (Evaluation Report No. 67, 2012; in variable, ranging from projects that have not incurred any Spanish, with conclusions and lessons learned in English) is available on the GEF Evaluation Office website, www.gefeo.org. such costs at all to a maximum investment of $350,000 for Also available on the website is GEF Annual Country Portfo- the Environmental Services Project. This last was eventu- lio Evaluation 2011 (Evaluation Report No. 64, 2012), which presents a synthesis of the two country portfolio studies (in ally canceled, because the El Salvador Congress failed to Jamaica and El Salvador) undertaken in 2010–11. For more approve it within the prescribed time period. Efficiency as information, please contact the GEF Evaluation Office at gefevaluation@thegef.org. measured by the cost-benefit ratios of the projects executed