S ignposts Evaluation of GEF National Capacity Self-Assessments April 2012 Success in achieving global en- resources to countries for self-assessments. However, vironmental objectives is linked NCSA relevance to GEF activities is diminishing. NCSAs to whether countries have the were not followed up with adequate investments to address robust institutions, experienced capacity development priorities, nor have NCSA outcomes personnel, enabling policy and been taken into account in developing GEF focal area proj- legal frameworks, and technical ects. expertise needed to meet the complex environmental chal- The NCSA initiative was highly relevant to national lenges that confront them. Since its inception in 1991, the sustainable development agendas and the capacity Global Environment Facility (GEF) has been helping countries development strategies of the GEF Agencies and multi- build their environmental capacity. In 2001, the GEF Council lateral environmental agreements. A review of 23 follow- approved the National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) ini- up cross-cutting capacity development projects conducted tiative, designed to help recipient countries take stock of their in 2010 confirmed the relevance of NCSAs to the sustain- capacity needs, determine national priorities, and plan activi- able development agenda of recipient countries. NCSAs ties to develop capacity in areas where it was most needed. have also been highly relevant to the mandates of the GEF Since 2002, the GEF has provided $28.7 million for 153 Agencies and to obligations under the global conventions. NCSAs; each country received a grant of about $0.2 million to conduct its own self-assessment. With nearly 90 percent of Efficiency the assessments completed, the GEF Council requested the A “one-size-fits-all” approach is not the most efficient GEF Independent Evaluation Office undertake an indepen- way to assess global environmental capacity needs at dent evaluation of the NCSA initiative. The evaluation, which the national level. A small equal grant for all countries may took place between February and November 2011, seeks to not be the best method to carry out national self-assess- provide lessons, experiences, and recommendations regard- ments. Other than geographic size, factors that influenced ing NCSA relevance, efficiency, and results. the effectiveness and efficiency of country use of NCSAs include population, political context, legislation, policies, The evaluation included an assessment of all approved economy, timing, level of development, and global environ- NCSAs, the Global Support Program, and follow-up capac- mental significance. ity development projects. Data collection was carried out and triangulated through interviews with key stakeholders, an e- The Global Support Program improved NCSA imple- survey, a review of NCSA final reports and action plans, tele- mentation. The Global Support Program was established conferences and visits to seven countries—Paraguay, Ecua- by the GEF Council in 2005 as a joint facility of the United dor, Montenegro, Croatia, Senegal, India, and Thailand. Nations Development Programme and the United Nations Environmental Programme. It provided technical support and backstopping for implementing NCSAs, developed Findings guidance material, analyzed lessons, and developed Relevance programming frameworks for implementation of capacity The NCSA initiative was a central part of the GEF strategic development priorities. framework for capacity development. Since its inception, the initiative has been a keystone for implementation of the A broad range of stakeholders participated in the NCSA capacity development strategic framework and has provided process, but the participatory process could have been Evaluation of GEF National Capacity Self-Assessments S ignposts more inclusive. Stakeholder participation was a key NCSA Twenty-three follow-up projects are addressing capac- principle, and for many countries this process was very useful. ity development constraints identified by NCSAs. Out Often, the meetings provided an opportunity to recognize the of 132 completed NCSA projects since 2002, 23 countries need for national cross-sectoral coordination of efforts. How- have received a $0.5 million follow-up grant during GEF-4 ever, results from the e-survey indicated a sharp contrast in the (2006–10) to implement priorities identified in NCSA action perceptions of government representatives and civil society plans. In addition, the GEF has allocated $44 million for the organizations, with only 34  percent of the latter stating that cross-cutting capacity development strategy. they were satisfied with the stakeholder engagement process. The GEF and the Rio conventions did not take full advan- Results tage of the information and methodology produced by the The NCSA initiative is the first assessment of national NCSA initiative. The long-term impacts of the NCSA initiative environmental capacity needs and priorities with a global will be measured by whether these assessments and action reach. The NCSA process helped countries understand what plans are used to support larger strategies and programs, needs to be done to improve their environmental management particularly at the country level. The lack of linkages with other frameworks. It was the first assessment of this kind made Initiatives limits the use of NCSA information. available to all GEF recipient countries. Recommendations Globally, the top cross-cutting capacity development ●● As GEF-5 (2010–14) strategies were approved and are now needs are public awareness and environmental educa- under implementation, NCSA experiences and lessons tion; information collection, management, and exchange; learned should be incorporated in a new GEF strategic and the development and enforcement of policy, legal, framework for capacity development for GEF-6 (2014–18). and regulatory frameworks. Cross-cutting constraints identi- fied by countries included stakeholder engagement (46 coun- ●● NCSA knowledge products should be made available to tries), information and knowledge management (69 countries), the GEF Agencies and disseminated at GEF workshops, capacity of environmental organizations (53 countries), moni- such as the National Dialogue Initiatives. toring and evaluation limitations (62 countries), and convention conference of the parties negotiations, managing international Follow-Up projects and integrated ecosystem management (less than In November 2011, the GEF Council requested the Secretar- 30 countries). iat to incorporate NCSA experiences and lessons learned in Globally, the top thematic capacity development need is in the programming approach for GEF-6 and to make available the biodiversity focal area. Thematic assessments analyzed NCSA knowledge products, including toolkits on how them, to the country’s obligations and opportunities for each multilateral agencies and GEF workshops, as well as to GEF focal points. environmental agreement, and the country’s performance and achievements to date. A review of these thematic assessments was conducted using four focal areas—biodiversity, climate change, freshwater coastal ecosystems, and land degrada- The GEF Independent Evaluation Office is an indepen- dent entity reporting directly to the GEF Council, man- tion. Biodiversity conservation was identified as the highest dated to evaluate the focal area programs and priorities priority by 103 countries; 80 counties ranked climate change of the GEF. The full version of Evaluation of GEF National vulnerability as their top priority; 74 countries cited land use Capacity Self-Assessments (Evaluation Report No. 70) is and deforestation as their most important issues. Most issues available on the GEF Independent Evaluation Office website, www.gefeo.org. For more information, please contact the Office identified as high priority were also recommended for capacity at gefevaluation@thegef.org. development actions.