39189 Global Environment Facility Evaluation Office ________________________________________________________________________ Executing Agencies GEF Portfolio Overview ________________________________________________________________________ Technical Paper 2 Part of the Evaluation of the Experience of the Executing Agencies under Expanded Opportunities in the GEF, conducted by the GEF Evaluation Office. Not edited November 2006 By: Omar Lyasse Task Manager: Siv Tokle Team Leader: Oscar Gonzales-Hernandez 1 1. Introduction This paper provides an overview of the participation of the Executing Agencies (ExAs) in the GEF Partnership at the project level, through the following sections: · The ExA project portfolio; present status, composition and distribution across agencies, focal areas and regions · A quality at entry assessment of selected ExA full-size projects; particularly focusing on a sub-set of GEF Operational Principles · Experience of ExAs in the GEF activity cycle; a reflection on project processing times of GEF projects with ExA involvement · Co-financing; a brief section regarding co-financing characteristics of the ExA project portfolio. The data for the portfolio analysis was obtained using the existing GEF Project Management Information System (PMIS), as well as the database developed by the Joint Evaluation for which the project data was verified by all concerned Agencies. Nonetheless, discrepancies with Agency data may persist, since the establishment of a fully reliable and up to date GEF project management information system with continuous data reconciliation is still a work in progress. The Executing Agencies are: · Asian Development Bank (ADB) · African Development Bank (AfDB) · European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) · Inter American Development Bank (IADB) · Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) · International Fund for Agriculture and Development (IFAD) · United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). 2. Portfolio Overview There are, as of January 2006, in total 38 approved projects with ExA involvement, representing both direct access and indirect access projects, the latter including jointly implemented projects from the Pilot phase1 through GEF-3. These comprise 18 projects prepared by Executing Agencies under direct access modality, as well as 20 projects prepared by Implementing Agencies (IAs) with ExA participation but not under expanded opportunities. The full list of GEF projects with ExA involvement to date is included in Annex A of this report. The majority of approved projects with ExA involvement originates from the international financial institutions (three Regional Development Banks (RDBs) and the International Fund for Agriculture and Development (IFAD)) and constitutes about 68% of the number of projects in the ExA portfolio. The African Development Bank (AfDB) is the only Executing Agency that has no approved GEF project in the database. This is largely attributed to the fact that they have experienced disruptions in recent times with the relocation of their headquarters and organizational restructuring. From the focal area perspective, 50% of the projects fall within the areas of Climate Change and Biodiversity, with a relatively even distribution of the remainder among Land Degradation (13%), International Waters (11%), POPs (13%) and Multi-focal areas (13%). A relatively large proportion of these projects are in Asia (37%), followed by regional projects (21%), and the Latin America and the Caribbean (15%). Projects in Africa, Europe and Central Asia and Global Projects each comprise 9% of the ExA portfolio. Figure 1 gives an overview of the approved ExA GEF projects per Agency across all GEF Replenishment Periods and includes jointly implemented projects with IAs. The distribution by focal area and region is also reflected in this figure. 2 Figure 1: ExA Portfolio Distribution Approved ExA projects by Focal Area Approved ExA Projects by Focal Areas POPs 13% Biodiversity 24% 9 Multi-focal Areas 8 13% 7 3 Land 6 Degradation MSP& 13% 5 Climate Change International 26% FSP 1 1 Waters of 4 11% 1 1 Nos.3 2 3 1 2 2 Approved ExA projects by region 3 1 1 1 REG, 7, AFR, 3, 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 21% 9% 0 ADB IADB IFAD UNIDO UNDP/ADB UNEP/FAO UNEP/IFAD Bank/FAO Asia, 12, UNDP/UNIDO Bank/ADB Bank/IADB LAC, 5, UNDP/UNEP/FAO UNEP/UNIDOWorld WorldBank/EBRDWorld World 37% UNDP/UNEP/UNIDO 15% Biodiversity Climate Change International Waters ECA, 3, Land Degradation Multi-focal Areas Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) 9% CEX, 3, 9% For the GEF-3 Replenishment Period, the Executing Agency participation in the total project portfolio remains at a rather modest share of 7.9 %2 for the seven Executing Agencies combined and including both direct and indirect access resources. A breakdown of this figure shows that more than half of the total approved Work Program (WP) budgets for Executing Agencies falls under indirect access. This distribution is a cause for concern from the perspective of the Executing Agencies as it suggests a lack of recognition regarding the strategic role they can and are expected to play within the GEF Partnership. The Work Program amounts approved by the Council in GEF-3 for the Executing Agencies as of August 2006 are depicted in the tables below. Table 1: Direct Access portfolio of Executing Agencies in GEF-3 Work Programs Agencies No. of Projects Approved WP amounts (in $ Share of total millions) approved WP amounts (%) FSP MSP FSP MSP Total ADB 4 3 50.56 2.28 52.83 2.0% IADB 4 1 15.82 1.00 16.82 0.65% EBRD 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% AfDB 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% FAO 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% IFAD 3 1 19.84 0.64 20.48 0.8% UNIDO 1 0 2.65 0 2.65 0.1% All ExAs 12 5 88.9 3.9 92.8 3.6% The figures in Table 2 include all joint projects with Executing Agency involvement, also encompassing those projects where arrangements have been worked out that enable direct access to resources by the Executing Agencies3. Cooperation between participating agencies has the potential to pull together matching comparative advantages to solve global environmental problems, but is traditionally not easy to achieve. Table 2: Indirect Access portfolio of Executing Agencies in GEF-3 (aggregated data) No. of Projects Approved WP amounts (in $ Share of total approved millions) WP amounts (%) FSP MSP FSP MSP Total All ExAs 11 2 109.70 2.00 111.70 4.3% 3 The involvement of several agencies also adds to the processing time for a joint project in the GEF activity cycle, largely resulting from the complexity of dealing with several agency cycles and processes. An example can be found in the African Stockpiles Program, a joint project of the World Bank and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (see Box 1). More details regarding the processing times of projects with ExA involvement can be found in the section on efficiency and effectiveness of this paper. Box 1: African Stockpiles Program (ASP) The ASP project is the first phase of a 15 year program to clean-up Africa from stockpiles of obsolete pesticides, including POPs, and introduce preventive measures that would ensure sustainability of the operation by preventing the creation of new stockpiles. In the first phase of the program, the project would target 15 countries, including 7 countries for full clean-up, and 8 countries for preparatory activities leading to clean-up. The main GEF Agencies involved with direct role in project implementation are the WB and FAO. This project has encountered a number of challenges during it's development, largely due to the complexities involved when dealing with an extensive partnership (No. of participating countries, several donors involved for co-financing, private sector involvement, etc.), and the fact that this project was originally conceptualized with the WB as the lead agency and FAO in the traditional role of executing agency without direct access. Early on in the project development phase, FAO was granted direct access to GEF resources for POPs, which changed the dynamics of the partnership, and contributed to a certain extent to the delays experienced between project approval and CEO endorsement (34.5 months). The total participation of Executing Agencies in Enabling Activities (EA) in GEF-3 amounts to 8% of all approved EAs. The total approved amount for Enabling Activities in GEF-3 was US$143.95 million, out of which $ 11.42 million (8%) was allocated to the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the only Executing Agency with an Enabling Activity portfolio. This signified a substantial participation in the total share (32%) of approved EAs for POPs. Table 3 provides an overview of UNIDO's participation in Enabling Activities4. Table 3: OverviewExA Enabling Activities portfolio in GEF3 (in million US$) Total no. Total Share of total Share of total of EAs approved approved for approved for for EAs EAs (%) POPs (%) UNIDO 18 $ 11.41 8% 32% With the GEF Results Allocation Framework (RAF) in effect for GEF-4, countries were requested to endorse their project proposals by September 2006. At the time of writing this report (October 2006), 55 endorsement letters had been received by the GEF Secretariat. A preliminary analysis of these endorsement letters reveals an imbalance in the proposed project distribution among the 10 agencies (Table 4). The initial round of proposals for the climate change and biodiversity focal areas included only five Executing Agency projects out of 241 (2%), accounting for 3% of the total country-endorsed allocations. An additional 4% of allocations for joint projects may also include Executing Agencies, but not under direct access. These figures show no positive evolution in Executing Agencies' involvement when compared to GEF-3. It should be noted that there is an overall imbalance, as the shares of most Agencies appear to decline relative to one Agency. 4 Table 4: Preliminary RAF endorsements (Adapted from table sent by GEF CEO to all GEF Partnership Agencies on October 5, 2006) Number of Endorsed Projects by Project Status and Agency Share in Biodiversity and Climate Change Focal Areas Number of Projects Share of Projects Agencies' Share of New Old All New Projects in total Projects Projects Endorsed Agencies' Portfolio Endorsements IAs 171 57 228 75% 95% ExAs 2 3 5 40% 2% Multiple (IA/ExAs) 5 3 8 63% 3% All Agencies 178 63 241 74% 100% Endorsed Amounts ($ million) Share of Endorsed Amounts Agencies' Share of New Old All New Projects in total Projects Projects Endorsed Agencies' Portfolio Endorsements IAs 282.3 159.3 441.6 64% 93% ExAs 6.0 9.9 15.85 38% 3% Multiple (IA/ExAs) 11.7 5.8 17.6 66% 4% All 300.0 175.0 475.0 63% 100% The RAF endorsements as depicted in Table 4 are presently under review and there will likely be a request to re-submit the proposals under the RAF by the national focal points as part of an effort to remediate the continuing disparity. According to a letter sent by the GEF Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to the Focal Points on October 05, 2006, the GEF Secretariat will assume responsibility to guide this re- submission process. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) noted in their comments on the Joint Evaluation report that during this process, challenges regarding the technical and management capacity of the focal points need to be overcome for which support from the Partnership Agencies would be needed. Within the context of the RAF, the ADB also suggested that "a mechanism needs to be established to encourage IAs/ExAs to work according to their comparative advantage to minimize conflicts/poaching among them, or to undertake joint implementation for integrated projects such that components are managed by different agencies according to their identified comparative advantage, i.e., capacity-building by the UN Development Programme (UNDP), scientific analysis by the UN Environment Program (UNEP), etc"5. On the topic of comparative advantage and its assessment, the World Bank proposed in its reaction to the draft paper on Comparative advantages6 to develop a concrete framework for comparative advantage assessments that would comprise essential criteria such as agency mainstream financing and leverage potential, agency human resources, both at technical and policy/strategic levels and their inherent absorption capacity as evidenced by existing portfolios and core project management expertise, policies and procedures7. If country GEF Focal Points could be effectively informed of the comparative advantages of all GEF Partnership Agencies, this would potentially pave the way to ensure the countries' access to the most appropriate Agency that will help them address their priority issues within the RAF. 3. Quality at Entry Desk reviews were carried out for a focused quality-at-entry assessment of Executing Agency projects, through an ex-post review of a sample of ExA full-size approved projects during GEF-3. This enabled the evaluation to obtain an overall picture of the general quality of ExA projects in the GEF-3 portfolio. A 5 total of 22 projects consisting of 11 direct access and 11 jointly implemented projects were reviewed. Use was also made of earlier quality assessments, and specifically the M&E quality at entry assessment that was prepared for the GEF Annual Performance Report 2005. For the latter, 74 full size projects that were CEO endorsed in FY 2005 were assessed, 68 of these were IA projects and 6 had ExA involvement (equally split between direct and indirect access). The evaluation could therefore consider the ExA project quality vis-à-vis the "standard" quality of IA projects and track the quality of design logic, project objectives and intended results to help ascertain the extent to which ExA projects are meeting the existing GEF requirements. The evaluation analyzed the project documentation and associated comments raised by the GEF Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP), the GEF Secretariat, Implementing Agency (where applicable) and the GEF Council8. The projects were reviewed against the following subset of GEF Operational Principles: (a) the incremental cost requirement (OPr2), (b) Cost Effectiveness (OPr3), (c) Country drivenness (OPr4), (d) Participatory processes (OPr8), (e) Catalytic role, especially with respect to the leveraging capacity through the co-financing (OPr9) and, (f) M&E arrangements (OPr10). However, it should be noted that this quality review was not meant to be an exhaustive assessment of individual projects' technical or operational merits, as this would have entailed an in-depth specialized technical expertise in a wide range of subject matters. From the 22 ExA projects reviewed, 11 were under direct access with ADB as the lead agency in 4 projects (18%), IADB in 3 (14%), IFAD in 3 (14%) and UNIDO in 1 (5%) project(s). Of the remainder, not under direct access (including Joint projects), 5 (23%) are projects with UNIDO involvement, 2 projects (9%) with FAO involvement and the rest are 3 joint projects with respectively the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), IFAD and the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) (Figure 2). Among the focal areas, biodiversity has 6 (27%) projects, Climate Change 2 (9%), International Waters 3 (14%), Multi Focal Areas 4 (11%), Land Degradation 3 (4%), and Persistent Organic Pollutants 4 (18%) (Figure 3). The scarcity of data points (when disaggregated) does not allow for neither inter-Agency nor inter-focal area comparisons of quality aspects of the projects. However, some comparisons can be made between direct and in-direct access projects. Fig. 2: Frequency distribution of Projects Fig.3: Frequency distribution between Focal between Agencies Areas IADB indirect, 1, IFAD indirect, 1, PoPs, 4, EBRD indirect, 1, 5% 5% ADB, 4, 17% 5% 18% BD, 6, 27% IADB,3,13% UNIDO indirect, 5, Multi-Focal, 22% 4, 18% CC, 2, 9% FAO indirect, 2, 9% IFAD,3,14% LD, 3, 14% IW, 3, 14% UNDP/ADB,1,5% UNIDO,1,5% To assess project quality, the evaluation used the number of comments the projects received during the different review steps at different stages of project preparation as a proxy. This evaluation took into account the respective aggregated number of comments on the six Operational Principles mentioned above (Incremental Cost, Cost Effectiveness, Country Drivenness, Participatory Processes, Catalytic Role and M&E aspects). These data would have to be interpreted with care since the nature and amount of comments given can differ depending on the stage of preparation as the STAP and IA comments are given before Work Program Inclusion (WPI), the Council Comments at WPI and the GEF Secretariat comments are provided throughout the project approval process. 6 Figure 4 provides an overall picture of the proportion of ExA projects, that received comments on the Operational Principles, categorized according to direct and in-direct access. A majority of the projects received comments and were asked to provide additional information on the M&E aspect (82% and 91% for respectively direct and in-direct access projects; 86% for all projects), which is higher than the percentage of projects that were commented upon in the quality-at entry exercise on M&E in the 2005 APR. The Principle least commented upon is the Incremental Cost requirement (27 and 45% respectively for direct and in-direct projects; 36% for all projects). According to the recent comprehensive Incremental Cost Evaluation, most project documents register weak compliance against GEF requirements for incremental cost assessment and requirements. In general, the incremental cost assessments as depicted in project documents seem to be rather formulaic in nature, mainly resulting from the fact there is a divergent understanding and much confusion about incremental cost concepts and procedures. Figure 4 suggests that this formulaic interpretation, for this small sample of projects at least, seems to extend beyond the Agencies themselves as the current review steps do not seem to capture an overall weak compliance with the Incremental Cost requirement as presently applied. Fig.4: Comments on selected GEF OPrs in ExA Project Reviews 100% 91% 90% 86% 82% 82% 82% 80% 77% on 73% 73% 73% 73%73% 70% 64% 60% commented 55% 50% Direct Access 50% 45% 45% In-direct Access projects Overall of 40% 36% 30% 27% Percentage 20% 10% 0% Incremental cost Cost effectiveness Country Participatory Catalytic role M&E analysis drivenness Processes arrangements Operational Principles At the level of specific quality dimensions there were some variations along the lines of direct vs. indirect access, specifically pertaining to comments received for the incremental cost principle where more in- direct access projects have received comments as compared to the direct access ones (45% vs. 27% of the projects, respectively) whilst the reverse could be observed for the operational principle on participatory processes (82% vs. 64%, respectively for direct and in-direct access projects. There was relatively little clustering of quality shortcomings around specific aspects of the individual projects. Typically, a project might be commended on several aspects such as soundness in cost effectiveness and participatory processes used, but less well in the aspect of M&E approaches for instance. This causes the patterns of strengths and weaknesses to vary across the project sample, and implies that no specific quality concern could be identified that needs to be addressed in order to improve the quality of ExA projects. However, it was observed that the projects originating from the regional Development Banks seem to attract fewer comments during the different review steps, as illustrated in Table 5 below. A further breakdown of the number of ExA projects commented upon per operating principle and Review entity can be found in Annex B of this paper. 7 Table 5: Comments on selected Operational Principles with and without RDB involvement Comments received (as a percentage of the number of projects) No of Incremental Cost Country Participatory Catalytic Projects cost effectiveness drivenness Processes role M&E Projects with RDB involvement 11 27% 64% 27% 73% 55% 82% Projects with no RDB involvement 11 45% 91% 73% 73% 91% 91% It should be noted that quality at entry is not necessarily guaranteed by the different review steps, as reported in Chapter 6 of the JE: "...When wanting to promote quality, more appraisal bodies do not appear to help secure project quality, as numerous views are often conflicting and overlapping and are difficult to integrate in a coherent manner. Ultimately, extensive formulation requirements, periodic review points and appraisal and approval by numerous bodies do not assure quality-at-entry." This is in line with earlier recommendations formulated in OPS2 (2002): "...there is still room for improvement in the GEF's review and processing procedures and management of the project review process. ... The GEF should manage delivery of global environmental benefits by initiating a institution-wide shift from an approval culture to one that emphasizes quality and results." This is also echoed in the comments on the Joint Evaluation Report, where some ExAs argue for a transition from an "appraisal/approval culture" and the emphasis on quality at entry towards a stronger emphasis on management for results and effective monitoring and adaptive management. Additionally, a suggestion was made to revisit the GEF review steps to ensure that these truly represent an added value to the agencies' own quality standards (source: Comments received from ExAs on JE). Even though this evaluation does not permit a comprehensive assessment of the effect of the comments received on the final product, i.e. project document, most comments received were either responded to or addressed by the project teams. The evaluation reviewed the final project documentation and found that the issues raised where adequately addressed and all the projects in the sample were overall in line with internationally acceptable quality standards. This was also confirmed during the interviews with staff from IAs, ExAs and GEFSEC during which no specific quality issues were raised regarding the ExA project portfolio. Furthermore, the quality at entry assessment for M&E as presented in the 2005 APR revealed that overall compliance with each of the critical parameters utilized for that exercise hovered around 65 % for the projects with ExA involvement (aggregated for both direct access and in-direct access since only a total of six projects with ExA involvement were included in the APR assessment), which is similar to the projects implemented by the IAs. In conclusion, this evaluation reconfirms the findings of the previous reviews of the experience of ExAs under expanded opportunities (2003), namely that the quality at entry of the projects has remained at an acceptable level after due consideration of the initial learning period all Agencies had to go through when they joined the GEF Partnership. Once passed this stage, ExA operational teams have been able to produce projects that are quality-wise comparable with projects presented by IAs. No assessment has been made in this evaluation regarding the effectiveness and whether the projects ultimately result in an appreciable and sustainable impact on the ground, but it's worthwhile noting that only 3 projects with ExA involvement (but not under expanded opportunities) have gone through the whole project life cycle up to terminal evaluation. 4. Experience of ExAs in the GEF Activity Cycle This section examines the processing times of selected projects where Executing Agencies participated in different capacities, either as a lead agency or contributing to a joint effort. This enabled the evaluation to assess whether there are any differences in the time lags experienced in the GEF activity cycle by Executing Agencies as compared to the overall time lags as analyzed by the Joint Evaluation. 8 As the Joint Evaluation of the GEF activity cycle has shown, the average time it takes for a full-size - proposal to become effective is lengthy and has been increasing from GEF1 to GEF 3. The average time it takes for Full Sized Projects (including both IA and ExA projects) to go from pipeline entry to effectiveness was 41 months in GEF- (reference to data presented in the Joint Evaluation report), while for the GEF-3 ExA portfolio, the average time was 51.5 months with a median of 50.7 months (see Table 6). It therefore appears that it takes on average an additional 10 months for projects with ExA involvement to go from Pipeline Entry to Project Start as compared to the overall average. However, given the fact that the ExA dataset for pipeline to effectiveness is limited (total of 11 data points, see Table 6), and taking into account the variability of the data (ranging from 30.4 months to 76.1 months), this information needs to be interpreted with caution. Nonetheless, the most time-consuming period within the project cycle seems to be taken up by the period where decisions are sought within the GEF (i.e. from pipeline entry to approval) as illustrated in Table 6. Table 6: Processing times of ExA FSP portfolio in GEF-3 The data in Table 6 indicate that there is a minimal difference between the time it takes from pipeline entry to CEO endorsement in direct access projects (48 months) and projects that are jointly implemented with IAs (50 months). This may be contrary to expectations, especially when considering that the joint projects usually have to go through four project cycles that are not necessarily well synchronized (Government, GEF, IA and ExA). Table 6 also shows that the period from pipeline to approval seems to take up less time on average for indirect access (29.3 months) as compared to direct access projects (40.1 months). It would therefore not be unreasonable to assume that the presence of an IA in a joint project might have accelerated the speed with which the project goes through the period between pipeline to approval in the cycle. However, the average 10 month "advantage" in the period from pipeline entry to approval for jointly implemented projects is offset by the subsequent period from project approval to CEO endorsement. This is likely due to the fact that the suggested revisions and comments by the Council at the time of approval need to be incorporated and adequately addressed prior to CEO endorsement, a process that conceivably would take up more time when more agencies are involved, as is the case with jointly implemented projects. There are a multitude of reasons and sources of the delays in project processing as experienced by the ExAs, ranging from the inherent complexity of the GEF cycle itself to gaps in the communication flow between key project proponents. An overview of possible sources of delay as perceived by the ExAs can be summarized as follows (based on comments received from the ExAs by the JE): · Frequent GEF policy changes triggering new documentation requirements and additional steps into the GEF activity cycle. This not only affects new projects, but has also consequences for existing projects in the pipeline. Consequently, most ExAs have found themselves in a perpetual state of 9 learning and adapting to new GEF processes, which might have affected their elapsed times in the cycle. · Gaps in communication flow between the GEF Secretariat and Agencies. This pertains especially to the status of project proposals in the decision making process and the lack of timely guidance and feedback from the GEF secretariat on queries by the Executing Agencies. · Fund availability (especially in the transition between replenishment phases): During the Joint Evaluation workshop in September 2006, the point was raised that towards the end of a GEF period and before a fresh replenishment would become available, projects experience additional delays because of temporary scarcity of funds. · Co-financing requirement: Some ExAs perceive that the co-financing requirement as currently applied is adding significantly to the delays while not adding sufficient value to the project. · Country readiness: This relates mainly to country level capacity issues and difficulties encountered when trying to reconcile national execution modalities with GEF requirements (see Box 2 for specific examples). Box 2: Examples of country issues contributing to delays in project processing times · The ADB's "Integrated Coastal Resources Management Project" GEF Pipeline Entry - 09 Feb 2000 ­ CEO Endorsement - November 2006 (expected): The processing of this project was delayed by fiscal constraints experienced by the Philippine Government. · The ADB's "Sanjiang Plains Wetlands Protection Project" GEF Pipeline Entry - 31 Aug 99 - CEO Endorsement - 7 Feb 05: The subject project was originally integrated with another project (on flood control) located upstream. During PDF-B implementation, the PRC government requested that the two projects be prepared separately into the Songhua Flood Control Project and the Sanjiang Plains Wetlands Protection Project. An additional cause for delays, particularly for jointly implemented projects, are the Project fee negotiations. The fee is simultaneously approved with the respective project itself and is mainly related to the cost of project coordination, administration and supervision. In direct access projects, this fixed fee system is straightforward as there is only one Agency to contend with. With projects implemented jointly with other agencies, extensive negotiations regarding the distribution of the fee are common. There are no clear GEF guidelines to guide the process of fee negotiation, which largely depends on the specific agencies and staff involved. Depending on the level of understanding that exists between the jointly implementing Agencies, and on whether the project preparation was done effectively in a joint fashion, these negotiations can result in mutually acceptable arrangements and agreements. When such agreements are difficult to reach, the process results in delays. Furthermore, the current system does not allow the Trustee to easily record and track division of funds for joint projects, which has at times caused delays in disbursements to the Agencies. 5. Cofinancing The ability of the Executing Agencies to source and ensure co-financing for GEF projects follows the same pattern as for the Implementing Agencies. The financial institutions (the four Regional Development Banks and IFAD) seem to exhibit a greater leveraging capacity than FAO and UNIDO (see Tables 7 and 8). Given the limited data points in disaggregated form and the presence of outliers (e.g. the Medium-size Project (MSP) co-finance ratio of IADB concerns one MSP project with a ratio of over 60, which also influenced the overall MSP-co-finance ratio), some caution should be used when interpreting these figures. The information in the tables does nevertheless show that the aim of increasing the number of plausible sources for additional financial leveraging within the GEF has been generally successful with the inclusion of the ExAs under expanded opportunities. 10 Table 7: Co-Financing figures for the ExA project portfolio Overall Direct Access Indirect Access MSP FSP Co- Financing Co-Financing Co-Financing Co-Financing Co-Financing ratio ratio ratio ratio ratio All Ex A 3.46 4.71 2.92 16.75 3.10 ADB 4.16 4.64 2.84 1.35 4.29 IADB 6.74 8.89 5.22 61.51 4.17 IFAD 2.57 1.86 4.33 N/A 2.57 FAO 2.93 N/A 2.93 N/A 2.93 UNIDO 1.59 N/A 1.59 1.00 1.60 EBRD 6.26 N/A 6.26 23.00 4.59 AfDB N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Table 8: Co-Financing figures for the IA project portfolio Co-Financing Ratio Overall FSP MSP All IAs 3.59 3.68 2.04 UNDP 1.90 1.88 2.24 UNEP 1.40 1.41 1.37 WB 5.00 5.09 2.28 6. Conclusions The Executing Agencies' participation in the total project portfolio of the GEF-3 replenishment remains at a low share of 7.9 % for all seven Executing Agencies combined and including both direct and indirect access involvement. There are, as of January 2006, 38 approved projects with Executing Agency involvement, including 18 projects under direct access. The majority of approved ExA projects originate from three RDBs and IFAD. The quality of Executing Agency projects proposed for inclusion in the GEF Work Program is on par with internationally acceptable quality standards. This evaluation therefore reconfirms the findings of the previous reviews of the experience of ExAs under expanded opportunities (2003), namely that ExA operational teams have been able to produce projects that are quality-wise comparable with projects presented by IAs. Full Size Projects with Executing Agency involvement in GEF 3 take on average 51.5 months to go from Pipeline Entry to Project Effectiveness while the overall average is 41 months. No significant difference was observed between the time it takes from pipeline entry to CEO endorsement in direct access projects (48 months) as compared with projects that are jointly implemented with IAs (50 months). Executing Agency involvement in the GEF under expanded opportunities has increased the number of plausible sources for additional financial leveraging. The ability of the Executing Agencies to source and ensure co-financing for GEF initiatives follows the same pattern as for the Implementing Agencies. 11 ANNEX A: EXECUTING AGENCY PROJECTS Proje GEF GEF ct GEF Operational budget ID Type Phase Agency Focal Area Country Program Project Name ($ Mi) Climate 60 FP Pilot World Bank/IADB Change Costa Rica 6 Tejona Wind Power 3.3 Climate Energy Conservation and GHG Emissions 263 FP GEF1 UNDP/UNIDO Change China 5 Reduction in Chinese TVEs - Phase II 1 Biodiversity Conservation in the Sundarbans 455 FP GEF1 World Bank/ADB Biodiversity Bangladesh 2,3 Reserved Forest 12.2 Climate Energy Conservation and GHG Emissions 622 FP GEF2 UNDP/UNIDO Change China 5 Reduction in Chinese TVEs - Phase II 7.99 Protected Areas and Wildlife Conservation 878 FP GEF2 World Bank/ADB Biodiversity Sri Lanka 3 Project 10.5 Climate 881 FP GEF2 UNDP/ADB Change China 6 Wind Power Development Project 12 Global (Cameroon, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Indonesia, Reduction of Environmental Impact from Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Tropical Shrimp Trawling through Introduction International Philippines, Trinidad and of By-catch Technologies and Change of 884 FP GEF2 UNEP/FAO Waters Tobago, Venezuela) 9 Management 4.78 PRC/GEF Partnership on Land Degradation Multi-focal in Dryland Ecosystems: Project I-Capacity 956 FP GEF3 ADB Areas China 12 Building to Combat Land Degradation 8.05 Environmental Protection and Maritime International Regional (Belize, Guatemala, Transport Pollution Control in the Gulf of 963 FP GEF3 IADB Waters Honduras) 10 Honduras 5.35 Regional (Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Integrated Ecosystem Management in 1092 FP GEF3 World Bank/IADB Biodiversity Panama) 3,4 Indigenous Communities 9.7 Climate 1105 FP GEF2 ADB Change China 6 Efficient Utilization of Agricultural Waste 6.36 12 Proje GEF GEF ct GEF Operational budget ID Type Phase Agency Focal Area Country Program Project Name ($ Mi) 1126 FP GEF3 ADB Biodiversity China 2 Sanjiang Plain Wetlands Protection Project 12.5 Biodiversity Conservation and Participatory Sustainable Management of Natural 1,2, 12, 13, Resources in the Inner Niger Delta and its 1152 FP GEF3 IFAD Biodiversity Mali 15 Transition Areas, Mopti Region 6.33 1183 FP GEF3 UNDP/ADB Biodiversity Cambodia 2 Tonle Sap Conservation Project 3.6 Integrated Coastal Resources Management 1185 FP GEF3 ADB Biodiversity Philippines 2 Project 9.34 Regional (Angola, Benin, Cameroon, Congo DR, Cote d'Ivoire, Gabon, Ghana, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea- Combating Living Resource Depletion and Bissau, Liberia, Nigeria, Sao Coastal Area Degradation in the Guinea UNDP/UNEP/UNI International Tome and Principe, Sierra Current LME through Ecosystem-based 1188 FP GEF3 DO Waters Leone, Togo, Congo) 9 Regional Actions 21.5 EBRD/GEF Environmental Credit Facility International (formerly entitled Slovenia: National Pollution 1229 FP GEF3 World Bank/EBRD Waters Slovenia 8 Reduction Project) 9.99 Regional (Botswana, Cameroon, Cote d'Ivoire, Persistent Lesotho, Mali, Morocco, Organic Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Pollutants Nigeria, South Africa, Tunisia, 1348 FP GEF3 World Bank/FAO (POPs) Ethiopia,Swaziland, Tanzania) 14 Africa Stockpiles Program, P1 25.7 Climate Renewable Energy -based Electricity 1358 FP GEF3 UNEP/UNIDO Change Zambia 6 Generation for Isolated Mini-grids 3.28 Generation and Delivery of Renewable Climate Energy Based Modern Energy Services in 1361 FP GEF3 UNEP/UNIDO Change Cuba 6 Cuba; the case of Isla de la Juventud 5.66 Demand-side Energy Efficiency in Public Climate Buildings, Lodz Municipal Energy Services 1445 MSP GEF3 World Bank/EBRD Change Poland 5 Company 1 13 Proje GEF GEF ct GEF Operational budget ID Type Phase Agency Focal Area Country Program Project Name ($ Mi) Consolidation of Ecosystem Management and 1515 FP GEF3 IADB Biodiversity Honduras 2 Biodiversity Conservation of the Bay Islands 2.82 National Performance Assessment and Subregional Strategic Environment Multi-focal Regional (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Framework in the Greater Mekong Subregion 1684 MSP GEF3 ADB Areas China, Thailand, Vietnam) 12 (GMS) 0.8 Global Programme to Demonstrate the Viability and Removal of Barriers that Impede Persistent Adoption and Successful Implementation of Organic Available, Non-Combustion Technologies for Pollutants Destroying Persistent Organic Pollutants 1692 FP GEF3 UNDP/UNIDO (POPs) Slovak Republic 14 (POPs) 10.7 Multi-focal Mount Kenya East Pilot Project for Natural 1848 FP GEF3 UNEP/IFAD Areas Kenya 12,3, 4, 15 Resource Management (MKEPP) 5.05 Multi-focal Prevention and Control of Dust and 1870 MSP GEF3 ADB Areas Regional (China, Mongolia) 12 Sandstorms in Northeast Asia 0.5 Natural Resources and Poverty Alleviation 1907 MSP GEF3 ADB Biodiversity Afghanistan 1,2, 3, 4 Project 0.98 Persistent Fostering Active and Effective Civil Society Organic Participation in Preparations for Pollutants Implementation of the Stockholm Convention. 2067 MSP GEF3 UNEP/UNIDO (POPs) Global 14 (NGO-POPs Elimination Project). 1 Global Programme to Demonstrate the Persistent Viability and Removal of Barriers that Impede Organic the Successful Implementation of Available Pollutants Non-Combustion Technologies for Destroying 2329 FP GEF3 UNDP/UNIDO (POPs) Philippines 14 Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) 4.57 Land Sustainable Land Management in the Semi- 2373 FP GEF3 IFAD Degradation Brazil 15 Arid Sertao 6.24 Supporting Implementation of the Cuban Land National Programme to Combat 2437 FP GEF3 UNDP/UNEP/FAO Degradation Cuba 15 Desertification and Drought (NPCDD) 10 Regional (Kazakhstan, Land Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Central Asian Countries Initiative for Land 2504 FP GEF3 ADB Degradation Uzbekistan, Tajikistan) 15 Management (CACILM) 20.7 14 Proje GEF GEF ct GEF Operational budget ID Type Phase Agency Focal Area Country Program Project Name ($ Mi) Multi-focal Sustainable Environmental Management for 2517 FP GEF3 IADB Areas Regional (Costa Rica, Panama) 12,2, 8, 13 Sixaola River Basin 3.5 Regional (El Salvador, Integrated Management of the Montecristo 2686 FP GEF3 IADB Biodiversity Guatemala, Honduras) 4 Trinational Protected Area 3.65 Regional Project to Develop Appropriate Persistent Strategies for Identifying Sites Contaminated Organic by Chemicals listed in Annexes A, B and/or C 2720 FP GEF3 UNIDO Pollutants Regional (Nigeria, Ghana) 14 of the Stockholm Convention 2.65 Multi-focal Participatory Coastal Zone Restoration in the 2753 FP GEF3 IFAD Areas Sri Lanka 2,3, 15 Eastern Province of Post-Tsunami Sri Lanka 7.35 Climate Regional (Brazil, Nicaragua, 3005 MSP GEF3 IADB Change Panama, Mexico) 6 CleanTech Fund 1 Global (Asia/Pacific, Latin Land America and Caribbean, Europe Supporting Capacity Building for the Third 3060 MSP GEF3 IFAD Degradation and Central Asia) 15 National Reporting to CRIC-5/COP-8 0.64 15 ANNEX B: COMMENTS ON SELECTED GEF OPERATIONAL PRINCIPLES IN EXA PROJECT REVIEWS Comments on Incremental Cost Comments on Cost Effectiveness in Comments on Country Drivenness in Weakness in ExA project Reviews ExA project Reviews ExA project Reviews 3.5 7 6 3 6 5 2.5 5 4 2 Direct Access 4 Direct Access Direct Access 3 1.5 In-Direct Access 3 In-Direct Access In-Direct Access 2 1 2 0.5 1 1 0 0 0 STAP rev GEFSEC IA rev Council STAP rev GEFSEC IA rev Council STAP rev GEFSEC IA rev Council Rev Rev Rev Rev Rev Rev Review steps Review steps Review steps Comments on Participatory Comments on Catalytic Role in ExA Comments on M&E in ExA project Processes in ExA project Reviews project Reviews Reviews 6 7 8 7 5 6 6 5 4 5 Direct Access 4 Direct Access Direct Access 3 4 In-Direct Access 3 In-Direct Access In-Direct Access 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 STAP rev GEFSEC IA rev Council STAP rev GEFSEC IA rev Council STAP rev GEFSEC IA rev Council Rev Rev Rev Rev Rev Rev Review steps Review steps Review steps 16 1The Costa Rica Tejona Wind Power Project, GEF project id No. 60, was listed under the GEF Pilot Phase and was jointly implemented by the World Bank and IADB. 2This 7.9 % was calculated based on the total approved WP amounts in GEF 3, including the Council approvals in June and August 2006. The total approved GEF 3 Work Program amount up to August 2006 stands at $ 2,582,247,782 (source: JE database and PMIS). This figure does not include the allocations for enabling activities, only PDF resources and GEF project budgets have been considered. 3 For example the project WB/IADB ACICAFOC-CCAD: "Central American Indigenous and Peasant Coordination Association for Community Agroforestry (ACICAFOC) and the Central American Commission on the Environment and Development (CCAD)" and the WB/FAO "African Stockpiles Program". 4The total approved amount for enabling activities in GEF-3 was U$143.95 Mi, out of which U$ 11.42 Mi (8%), was allocated to one Executing Agency, UNIDO. 5Source, Consolidated comments from Agencies on the Joint Evaluation Report. 6GEF/C.28/15: Comparative Advantages and Complementary Roles of the Implementing Agencies and Executing Agencies of the GEF (June 2006). 7Adapted from email communication between the WB and GEFSEC on the draft GEF/C.28/15 (May 04, 2006). 8Not all review comments were present in the PMIS (e.g. missing Council or IA comments for certain projects). 17