S ignposts GEF Annual Performance Report 2011 February 2013 The annual performance report of completed projects from the other GEF Agencies is not (APR) of the Global Environ- yet significant. ment Facility (GEF), prepared Fifty-seven projects were rated moderately likely or above in each year by the GEF Inde- terms of the sustainability of their outcomes. Sixty percent pendent Evaluation Office, of the total GEF investment in FY 2011—$249 million out of provides a detailed overview $412 million—went to these projects. Financial risks were of the performance of GEF activities and processes, key the most frequently cited threats to outcome sustainability. factors affecting performance, and the quality of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) arrangements. Through the APR, The level of cofinancing materialized, as reported by GEF Council members, countries, Agencies, and other the GEF Agencies, is on average higher than the level stakeholders can better assess the degree to which GEF of cofinancing expected at the time of project approval. investments are meeting their objectives, and identify areas The GEF Council views cofinancing to be an indicator of a for improvement. project’s sustainability, country ownership, and mainstream- ing of GEF activities into those of its partner institutions. For APR 2011 is the result of a synthesis of 102 terminal evalua- the FY 2011 cohort, $2.90 in cofinancing was promised at tion reports of completed projects that account for $414 mil- project start for every dollar of GEF funding overall. The ratio lion in GEF funding. The report also presents findings from of actual/materialized cofinancing to GEF grant amount at three reviews carried out by the Independent Evaluation approval was higher, at $5 of cofinancing per dollar of GEF Office covering: (1) assessment of the quality of M&E grant. The FY 2011 overall percentage of actual cofinancing arrangements in project design documents; (2) tracking to promised cofinancing is 170 percent, indicating that actual of parameters aligned with new requirements in the GEF’s cofinancing was 70 percent higher than expected. This per- 2010 M&E Policy, the Policy on Gender Mainstreaming, centage is significantly higher than the FY 2009–10 average the Policy on Environmental and Social Safeguard Stan- of 131 percent. This jump in percentage from last year’s dards, and the Council decision concerning mainstreaming cohort can be linked to eight UNDP projects. and targeting of adaptation and resilience; and (3) project arrangements for impact evaluation at entry. The quality of monitoring and evaluation during imple- mentation is rated moderately satisfactory or above for 67 percent of the projects evaluated since FY 2006. The Findings and Conclusions quality of M&E during implementation is strongly tied to qual- Outcome achievements of 80 percent of completed ity of M&E arrangements at entry. Of the projects for which projects reviewed for fiscal year (FY) 2011 were rated quality of M&E arrangements at entry is rated in the satis- in the satisfactory range. This level of achievement factory range, quality during implementation is also rated in is comparable to FY 2009 and FY 2010. Within the APR the satisfactory range for 80 percent in the FY 2011 cohort. 2011 cohort, 86 percent of projects implemented through the United Nations Environment Programme, 87 percent The quality of 84 percent of the terminal evaluations of United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) proj- submitted during FY  2011 was rated as moderately ects, and 67 percent of World Bank–implemented projects satisfactory or above. The quality of terminal evaluation were rated moderately satisfactory or above. The number GEF Annual Performance Report 2011 S ignposts reports was significantly higher among full-size projects than For an assessment of quality of arrangements for among medium-size projects: 90 percent versus 71 percent. impact evaluation at entry, 49 project proposals were chosen at random from projects endorsed by the CEO in Eighty percent of projects endorsed by the Chief Execu- FY 2011. The review rated overall quality of impact mea- tive Officer (CEO) in FY 2011 are compliant with mini- surement arrangements specified in project proposals to mum requirements for quality at entry as measured by be moderately satisfactory or above for 69 percent of the GEF‑4 standards. In comparison, 76 percent of the proj- proposals. Forty-nine percent met the rating of satisfactory ects endorsed by the CEO during FY 2008 met the same or above. A key finding was that project proposals that minimum requirements. In FY 2011, projects by the original were endorsed as part of a programmatic approach largely three GEF Agencies rated considerably higher than proj- tended to have a lower quality at entry rating for impact ects implemented through the newer GEF Agencies. As measurement arrangements. a group, the Asian Development Bank, the African Devel- opment Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and The GEF Management Action Record tracks the level of Development, the Inter-American Development Bank, the adoption of GEF Council decisions on the basis of evalua- International Fund for Agricultural Development, the Food tion findings and recommendations. This year, 10 Council and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and the decisions were tracked and verified: 2 were rated as having a United Nations Industrial Development Organization have a high level of adoption, 5 were rated as having made substan- significantly lower rate of compliance (58 percent). Among tial progress on adoption, 2 were rated as having a medium the focal areas, the multifocal area has the lowest rate of level of adoption, and 1 had a negligible level of adoption. compliance at 33 percent. GEF projects at entry demonstrate a high level of align- Recommendations ment between project logical frameworks and focal area One of the key courses of action recommended within the results frameworks per the new requirement in the 2010 APR is that GEF Agencies should enhance their efforts to M&E Policy. In the context of the results-based management specify how operational focal points will be engaged, when framework of the GEF, focal area results frameworks were feasible and relevant, in project M&E activities. developed outlining each focal area’s strategic objectives, outcomes, indicators, targets, and outputs. In APR 2011, Issues for the Future project results frameworks were assessed to determine if In the context of GEF Fifth Overall Performance Study, the indicators from focal area results frameworks were included GEF Independent Evaluation Office will further investigate in project M&E design (at entry). The results were positive, the parameters for the new GEF Policy on Gender Main- with 96 percent of projects demonstrating a high level of streaming, Environmental and Social Safeguard Standards, alignment. and the Strategic Priority for Adaptation. This will include a review of additional project documents and systems that GEF projects are beginning to specify how opera- Agencies have in place to monitor risks within these fields. tional focal points will be informed and, where feasible, involved in M&E activities. Of the 137 full-size projects endorsed by the GEF CEO in FY 2011, 24 address the role The GEF Independent Evaluation Office is an independent entity of operational focal points in planning, conduct, and results of reporting directly to the GEF Council, mandated to evaluate the all evaluation activities. The engagement of the focal points focal area programs and priorities of the GEF. The full version of GEF Annual Performance Report 2011 (Evaluation Report is a new requirement in the M&E Policy and is intended No. 80) is available on the GEF Independent Evaluation Office to improve national M&E, with an emphasis on increased website, www.gefeo.org. For more information, please contact country ownership. the Office at gefevaluation@thegef.org.