S ignposts GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: India (1991–2012) August 2013 The Independent Evaluation ●● GEF projects are generating global environmental ben- Office of the Global Environ - efits at a higher scale than originally covered through ment Facility (GEF) undertook broader adoption of the promoted technologies and a country portfolio evaluation of approaches. GEF support to India across all ●● The contributions of GEF activities to changes in India’s GEF Agencies and programs legal, policy, and regulatory framework have been sig- from 1991 to 2012. From its inception until July 2012, the nificant. GEF had allocated $411.2 million through 55 approved national projects and 319 small grants to India. These activi- ●● GEF support for communication and outreach activities ties involved an aggregated cofinancing commitment of has been effective in facilitating broader adoption of $3.2 billion by partner organizations. India is also a par- promoted technologies and approaches. There is evi- ticipant in 16 regional and global projects supported by dence that lessons from past interventions are being the GEF. These projects, along with the Small Grants Pro - mainstreamed into the formulation of GEF projects. gramme, were reviewed in this country portfolio evaluation. Relevance With an area of 3.29 million square kilometers, India is the ●● GEF support to India is relevant to the country’s pri - seventh largest country in the world. It has a population of orities, needs, and emerging challenges and has led to more than 1.2 billion, which makes it the second most popu- country ownership. lous country. India has experienced rapid economic growth Efficiency over the last 20 years and is rapidly emerging as a major ●● Proposals for the majority of GEF projects require con- economic power. It has a very wide range of ecosystems and siderable preparation time and, once implementation habitats, and is known for its rich biodiversity. Rapid popula- starts, most projects require extensions for completion. tion growth, gaps in institutional capacities, and trade-offs In some instances, this has limited outcome achieve - made for rapid economic development have, however, put ments. India’s significant natural resources under pressure. Given the size of its geographical area and population, and its ●● Adoption of the GEF RAF and India’s increased atten- economic growth, India is important to any global strategy for tion to portfolio planning have resulted in a decline in climate change mitigation and adaptation, as well as from a the rate at which projects and proposals are dropped biodiversity conservation and land degradation perspective. or canceled. ●● Contrary to expectations, for an overwhelming majority Findings of GEF projects, executing agencies report sufficient Effectiveness, Results, and Sustainability administrative budget ●● The GEF projects in India have generally been effective ●● GEF projects in India are reported to have mobilized a in achieving their outcomes at the point of completion. significant amount of cofinancing which is often made In the postcompletion phase, projects have, in several available in a timely manner. Activities supported through instances, made significant progress toward long-term cofinancing are generally well integrated into the project impacts. design. GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation for India: (1991–2012) S ignposts ●● Although quality of M&E in the GEF portfolio is improv- Recommendation to the GEF Council and India ing, it remains an area of weak performance. ●● Knowledge management is again confirmed as an ●● Inadequate understanding and arrangements prevented important factor that will help progress toward impact access of the GEF Independent Evaluation Office for and that could be further strengthened. independent field verification of two chemicals projects Recommendation to India in India. ●● India should integrate GEF support to chemicals into its rich tradition of full collaboration with the GEF and Recommendations its Agencies. Recommendations to the GEF Council ●● The GEF Council should request that Agencies ensure Follow-Up that their contracts with executing agencies require the The key findings and lessons were an input to the GEF latter to provide support to evaluations undertaken by the Annual Country Portfolio Report 2013, which was shared GEF Independent Evaluation Office, without any condi- with the GEF Council at its June 2013 meeting. The Coun- tions that would compromise the independence of the cil has asked the GEF Independent Evaluation Office to evaluation. The Council should also request Agencies interact with the GEF Agencies to ensure access to all GEF ensure that lack of adequate contractual arrangements projects. The main conclusions and recommendations of with executing agencies does not become a barrier to the this evaluation were presented to the GEF Council in May GEF Independent Evaluation Office conducting indepen- 2014 as an information document. dent field verification of projects that are already under implementation or that have been completed. The GEF Independent Evaluation Office is an indepen - ●● The success of country-focused programming of GEF dent entity reporting directly to the GEF Council, mandated support in India should be taken into account as a way to evaluate the focal area programs and priorities of the of increasing portfolio efficiency in GEF‑6 programming, GEF. The full version of GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: India (1991–2012) (Evaluation Report No. 84) is avail - together with the national portfolio formulation exercise able on the GEF Independent Evaluation Office website, and STAR findings that will emerge in OPS5. www.gefeo.org. For more information, please contact the Office at gefevaluation@thegef.org.