S ignposts GEF Annual Performance Report 2012 August 2013 The 2012 annual performance were achieved; the relevance of project results to GEF strat- report (APR) of the Global Envi- egies and country priorities; and their efficiency, including ronment Facility (GEF) was pre- cost-effectiveness. pared by the GEF Independent Overall, outcome ratings of GEF projects have risen over Evaluation Office to provide the past eight years: 86 percent of projects during OPS5 GEF Council members, coun- have ratings in the satisfactory range compared with 80 per- tries, GEF Agencies, and other stakeholders with informa- cent of projects from OPS4. At the same time, projects in tion on the extent to which GEF activities are meeting their African states and in small island developing states con- objectives. tinue to underperform relative to the larger GEF portfolio. APR 2012 reports on 78 projects, which together account A substantial improvement in the overall outcome ratings for $289.5 million in GEF funding. To capture trends, the of United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and performance of 413 completed projects reported on in pre- United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) projects vious APRs is also included in the analysis. APR 2012 was seen between OPS4 and OPS5. Ninety-five percent presents a detailed assessment of project outcomes, of UNEP projects and 88 percent of UNDP projects within implementation and execution, sustainability, trends in OPS5 have outcome ratings in the satisfactory range, com- cofinancing and project extensions, quality of monitoring pared to 74 percent and 78 percent of projects, respectively, and evaluation (M&E), and quality of terminal evaluation in OPS4. reports. Additionally, it reports on the level of adoption of GEF Council decisions. Sixty-six percent of projects in the APR 2012 cohort have sustainability ratings of moderately likely or APR 2012 was prepared as an input into the Indepen- above—similar to the long-term average. Sustainability dent Evaluation Office’s Fifth Overall Performance Study ratings assess the likelihood of continuation of project ben- (OPS5). The purpose of an OPS is to inform the GEF’s efits after completion of project implementation. Financial replenishment negotiations by presenting stakeholders risks continue to pose the biggest threat to sustainability. with findings from a number of independent evaluations regarding the extent to which the GEF is meeting its objec- More than 80 percent of rated projects were assessed tives. OPS5 covers completed projects included in APRs to have been implemented and executed in a satisfac- 2009–12. The previous OPS, OPS4, covered completed tory manner. Overall, jointly implemented projects have projects included in APRs 2005–08. lower quality of implementation ratings than those implemented by a single Agency. This finding suggests Findings and Conclusions that implementation of jointly implemented projects is both more complex, and has not received the same degree of Eighty-seven percent of projects within the APR 2012 implementation support as these projects warrant. cohort have overall outcome ratings in the satisfac- tory range. While not necessarily indicative of a trend, There has been a significant increasing trend in the per- the percentage of projects with outcome ratings in this centage of promised cofinancing realized. The amount range has risen between OPS cohorts. Project outcomes of realized (actual) to promised cofinancing has increased were evaluated as to the extent to which project objectives 55 percent between OPS4 and OPS5, from 90 percent in GEF Annual Performance Report 2012 S ignposts 81 percent of projects in OPS4 to 78 percent of projects OPS4 to 145 percent in OPS5. At the same time, the increase in OPS5. Project extensions indicate that project activities in the median ratio of actual to promised cofinancing is far were not completed within the anticipated timeframe; this less dramatic—from 1.0 to 1.1—indicating that a few out- may lead to cost overruns, scaling down of activities, or lying projects are responsible for generating large amounts greater time lag in achievement of outcomes. On the other of additional cofinancing. hand, extensions can also allow the project’s management to High quality of project management and a high level complete planned activities and outputs, resulting in greater of support from government and nongovernmental achievement of project outcomes. Among the projects with stakeholders appear to be important determinants of extensions, the median length of project extensions is high outcome achievements. Poor quality of project design 18 months for full-size projects and 12 months for medium- and management, on the other hand, lead to low outcome size projects. The GEF Agencies differ substantially with achievements. This finding was based on an in-depth desk regard to trends in project extensions. review of 281 terminal evaluations from 2009 to 2012. Eighty-six percent of terminal evaluations submitted in Ratings on quality of M&E design and M&E implemen- FY 2012 are rated in the satisfactory range for overall tation continue to be low. This trend continues despite quality of reporting—in line with the long-term average. changes in the M&E Policy designed to improve the quality Terminal evaluation reports provide one of the key ways in of M&E systems. Sixty-six percent of rated projects have which the GEF Council, management, Agencies, Indepen- M&E design ratings in the satisfactory range; ratings have dent Evaluation Office, and other stakeholders assess the remained the same between OPS4 and OPS5. Sixty- performance of GEF projects. The quality of medium-size eight percent of rated projects have M&E implementation projects has typically lagged behind that of full-size projects. ratings in the satisfactory range; these ratings declined slightly between OPS4 and OPS5. The quality of project M&E arrangements is evaluated in two ways: (1) through an assessment of the project’s M&E design, including whether indicators used are SMART (specific, measurable, achiev- able, realistic, and timely), whether relevant baselines are The GEF Independent Evaluation Office is an independent entity established, and whether M&E activities are properly bud- reporting directly to the GEF Council, mandated to evaluate the geted; and (2) assessment of the degree and quality of M&E focal area programs and priorities of the GEF. The full version during implementation. of GEF Annual Performance Report 2012 (Evaluation Report No. 83) is available on the GEF Independent Evaluation Office There has been a slight decline in the percentage of website, www.gefeo.org. For more information, please contact the Office at gefevaluation@thegef.org. projects with project extensions between OPS cohorts: