Aaron Zazueta, GEF Evaluation Office Presentation given during the 5th GEF Biennial International Waters Conference in Cairns, Australia during the results-based management session.

1. Progress towards ResultsProgress towards Results
Overall Performance Study of the GEFOverall Performance Study of the GEF
Aaron ZazuetaAaron Zazueta
GEF Evaluation OfficeGEF Evaluation Office

2. IntroductionIntroduction
 OPS4 is an independent study to assess the extent to which the
GEF is achieving its objectives and to identify potential
improvements.
 OPS4 is a working document of the 5th
Replenishment of the GEF
and will be presented to the Assembly in May 2010.
 Final report was presented to the third replenishment meeting, 13-
14 October, 2009.
2

3. ScopeScope
 16 key questions identified in ToR (in: www.gefeo.org)
 All projects and project proposals until June 30, 2009 were studied:
• 2,389 finished, on-going and approved projects: $ 8,772 M.
• Project Terminal evaluations since OPS3: 215.
 OPS4 built on OPS3, 24 evaluation reports of the Evaluation Office,
and evidence from:
• 57 countries, visited after OPS3
• 9 special country case studies
• 10 additional project visits
• Literature and desk reviews, interviews, surveys
 Consultations with representatives of all stakeholders
3

4. LimitationsLimitations
 All 16 key questions answered, but varying degrees of depth;
 Need more work on:
• The involvement of civil society and the private sector in the
GEF
• Resources management in the GEF
• Cost-effectiveness
• Impact analysis – project oriented
 Two major evaluations of the Evaluation Office have led to on-going
reform processes:
• The reform of the project cycle; positive indications but it is too
soon for an evaluative judgments
• The reform of the RAF
 Impact evidence in the GEF is still limited to the 3 implementing
agencies: World Bank, UNDP and UNEP.
4

5. Report overviewReport overview
 GEF in a Changing World
• International Context
• Resource Mobilization
• Convention Guidance
• The Catalytic Nature of the GEF
• Programming Resources
 Progress toward Impact
• From Hypothesis to Evidence
• Focal Area and Multi Focal Area Progress
 Issues affecting Results
• Performance
• The GEF as a Learning Organization
• Resources Management
 Governance and Partnership
The full document, annexes, methodological and technical documents
related to OPS4 can be found in www.gefeo.org
5

6. OPS4 Main conclusions (1)OPS4 Main conclusions (1)
 Funding gap:
• International funding gap on global environmental problems
• GEF Replenishments led to less funds in real terms
• GEF now has more Focal Areas, more guidance, and more
countries
 The GEF contributed to progress toward impact
• 70% of finished projects see progress toward global
environmental benefits,
• further follow-up action from national partners is essential to
achieve global environmental benefits
 GEF project performance is satisfactory
• the GEF projects are effective in producing outcomes,
• the average score over the GEF-4 period of 80% exceeding the
international benchmark of 75%
6

7. OPS4 Main conclusions (2)OPS4 Main conclusions (2)
 The efficiency of the GEF can and should be further improved
• emphasis on programming,
• less time spent on project identification,
• enhanced fee structure,
• more integrated learning (look at lessons from IW Learn),
• results-based management framework that includes progress to
impact measurements (logframes, tracking tools, impact )
 “Inability to deliver” is a perception linked to pre-approval phase
• reform processes are underway and show promise
• GEF should move from focal area programming toward programming
on a national level
 The GEF partnership brings added value – its tensions need to be
resolved
 Governance is adequate but could improve
• Substantive role of Assembly / meet more often
• Clearer delineation of governance/management roles
7

8. OPS4 recommendationsOPS4 recommendations
 Interaction between the GEF and the conventions need to be
improved.
 Improvements in resource management should focus on
• developing a new system for reserving funds for project ideas
• reforming fiduciary standards and the fee system
 The GEF Council should address tensions within the GEF
partnership and provide guidance on roles and responsibilities.
 If the GEF-5 replenishment recommendations include strong
proposals concerning programming, efficiency and partnership,
OPS4 supports the highest level of replenishment for the GEF.
8

9. International Waters
Main conclusions and recommendations
from OPS4
9

10. BackgroundBackground
 Long-term objectives:
• Foster international, multi-state cooperation on priority
transboundary enbironmental concerns through more
comprehensive, ecosystem-based approaches to management.
• Play a catalytic role in addressing transboundary water concerns
by assisting countries to utilize the full range of technical
assistance, economic, financial, regulatory and institutional
reforms that are needed.
 No Convention
 Importance of diagnosis (TDA) and the strategic programming
(SAP)
 Foundation / Demonstration / investment
10

11. Conclusions (1)Conclusions (1)
 Rising challenges make GEFs IW work highly relevant.
 GEF has provided important support to new and existing
international agreements for the protection of
International Waters
• Helped set the stage for national policies that
reduce environmental stress.
11

12. Conclusions (2)Conclusions (2)
 GEF is contributing towards the reduction of pollution
and other stresses (such as overfishing) in international
water bodies.
 23 Terminal Evaluations were examined
• 8 demonstrated stress reduction
• 7 achieved promising intermediary stages and
outcomes
• 8 not designed for impacts (Global projects) or
where Foundational (too early to assess)
12

13. Review of Outcomes to Impacts (ROtI)Review of Outcomes to Impacts (ROtI)
 Based on 23 Terminal Evaluations.
13
.
state /
condition
Outputs
Reduced
Threat to
GEB
Enhance
dStatus
of GEB:
Outcomes
IMPACT
Assumption Assumption Assumption
state /
condition
ThreatsBasedAnalysisOutcomes-ImpactsTOCAnalysisProject LogFrame Analysis

14. Factors that affect progress towards impactFactors that affect progress towards impact
 Relevance to national priorities (sustainable financial support)
 Engagement with industrial and agricultural interests and other
sectors.
 Robust understanding of Ecosystem Services (scientifically sound
diagnostics such as TDAs)
 Projects in which not all important catchment countries participate
face more difficulties in moving towards GEB
 Absence of baselines and weak monitoring makes it more difficult to
determine long-term impacts
14

15. RecommendationsRecommendations
 IW impact analysis need to be done at the water body or catchment
level
• Need to examine combined effects of phased and concurrent
projects
 Focus on involving all countries in a catchment area before
investment stage, while continuing to support all participating
countries
 Other Focal Areas should consider IWs Phased Approach
(Foundation, Demonstration, Investment) when appropriate
15

16. Recommendations (2)Recommendations (2)
 GEF should draw lessons from the IW Learn Initiative when
developing a Knowledge Management approach across Agencies
and Focal Areas
 Continue to develop and integrate tools for RBM ( Logframes,
tracking tools and emerging evidence on impact drivers )
16

17. Issues for future considerationIssues for future consideration
 Ex-post catchment /cluster impact evaluations will be useful to more
fully gauge IW impacts
• GEF EO will undertake an IW Impact Evaluation in 2010.
• Criteria for selection of study:
 High levels of GEF funding at the catchment/basin level.
 Long-term GEF involvement in the area.
• GEF EO is looking to partner with the Evaluation Offices of
other Agencies.
 Looking you’re your input for the planning of the IW impact study
during discussion on Friday
17

18. Tentative Questions for the IW EvaluationTentative Questions for the IW Evaluation
 To what extent has the campaigns identified the critical
transboundary concerns and their root causes?
 To what extent has the GEF catalyzed agreements among riparian
countries to address the critical tansboundary concerns and their
root causes?
 What have been the accomplishments of the campaign so far?
• Better understanding of issues, capacities strengthened, laws and
regulations adopted and enforced, demonstrations, etc.
 To what extent do accomplishments signify progress towards
impact?
• Reduction of transboundary environmental stressed
• Improvement on the ecological status and human populations
 What are the factors that contribute or hinder progress towards
impacts?
• Lessons and recommendations
18

19. THANK YOU
DISCUSSION GROUP
TOMORROW
azazueta@theGEF.org
19