S ignposts Midterm Evaluation of the National Portfolio Formulation September 2014 Exercise (NPFE) National portfolio formulation Effectiveness exercises (NPFEs) are coun- Uptake of the NPFE initiative was low due to delays in try-level portfolio planning pro- groundwork for implementation and difficulties experi- cesses that enhance country enced by the countries in accessing the GEF grant for ownership by determining pro- the initiative. Compared to the budgeted participation of gramming priorities in a given 100 countries, only 42 participated, 10 of which carried out Global Environment Facility (GEF) replenishment period. NPFEs using their own resources. The majority of countries Implementation of the NPFE initiative began at the start that took part were from Africa. Support for the NPFE was of GEF-5 (2010–14). The aim of the NPFEs is to ensure especially important for least developed countries (LDCs) recipient countries utilize GEF resources transparently and and small island developing states (SIDS). to provide an opportunity to align programming of GEF resources with relevant country strategies and national The majority of countries reported enhanced country planning processes to generate global environmental ben- ownership through the NPFE initiative. Main contributors efits. to this improved country ownership were consultations with a wide range of stakeholders and the creation of national The midterm evaluation of the NPFE, completed by the GEF steering committees, which provided a broader decision- Independent Evaluation Office in October 2013, focused on making and coordination structure for GEF programming. assessing the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, and util- Consultations undertaken as part of NPFEs broadened ity of the initiative including aspects of country ownership, opportunities for participation by various stakeholders in stakeholder involvement, and timeliness. A mixed meth- country portfolio formulation, including civil society orga- ods approach was utilized to collect information including nizations such as international nongovernmental organi- review of key documents, surveys, portfolio reviews, and zations, academic and research institutes, and commu- semistructured interviews. nity-based organizations; a few NPFEs had private sector participation. Findings The NPFE initiative provided a structure for a more Relevance systematic alignment of GEF support with country The NPFE initiative is relevant to the GEF mandate and strategies. Twenty-nine out of 34 countries detailed their policies and to country needs. It promotes ownership national environmental strategies in national portfolio for- and involvement of recipient countries in GEF pro- mulation documents and linked them with their programmed gramming and project development. Many of the coun- GEF projects. tries interviewed reported that, prior to the NPFE, there was no systematic effort to ensure alignment of GEF support In countries where stakeholder capacities were low, to national priorities or to plan the GEF portfolio. However, NPFEs were not effective in identifying project ideas GEF Secretariat technical staff and Agency staff main- eligible for GEF funding. In many countries, participants tained that the NPFE process was inadequate to promote were insufficiently informed and knowledgeable about the a strategic focus within the country portfolio and to identify GEF and its eligibility criteria, strategies, and project devel- projects eligible for GEF funding. opment processes. Only 25 percent of the project identi- Midterm Evaluation of the National Portfolio Formulation Exercise (NPFE) S ignposts fication forms (PIFs) approved in GEF-5 for countries that when it starts. The current balance in the NPFE program participated in NPFEs had been identified in their national should be used for NPFE support, especially to LDCs portfolio formulation document. and SIDS in 2014. Efficiency ●● The capacity development initiatives of the GEF—includ- ing the NPFE, National Capacity Self-Assessments, From an administrative perspective, the NPFE was National Dialogue Initiatives, and the Capacity Devel- inefficiently executed and not fully in accordance with opment Strategy—should aim to support a more com- Council decisions and guidelines. The process and prehensive understanding of the GEF with country-level administrative design of the NPFE aspired to strengthen partners and stakeholders, especially in LDCs and SIDS. country ownership over decisions on GEF resource pro- gramming. Therefore, financing modalities were selected for ●● The NPFE guidelines should address the information countries to receive resources from the GEF directly using needs of countries for programming on topics such as a direct access approach executed by the recipient coun- eligibility criteria, cofinancing expectations, and funding tries’ national institutions. Initially, a recipient-executed grant modalities. modality was selected, which caused major delays. This was replaced by a World Bank–executed ancillary expense Follow-Up agreement, which reduced the process from 36 to 7 steps, On reviewing the NPFE midterm evaluation, the GEF Coun- but also entailed many implementation challenges. cil requested the Secretariat do the following: The guidance provided on NPFEs did not adequately ●● Include in the final replenishment proposals the continu- address issues related to eligibility for GEF fund- ation of NPFE support in GEF-6, to be implemented ing, cofinancing requirements, and GEF modalities. through the Secretariat GEF guidance stated that the NPFE was to be executed by national institutions without GEF interference, so as ●● Use the balance of GEF-5 NPFE support for programming to promote country ownership. However, feedback from exercises, especially in LDCs and SIDS in 2014, to enable operational focal points in 32 countries confirmed that tech- countries to prepare for GEF-6 on a voluntary basis nical support throughout the NPFE process regarding GEF ●● Include in the final replenishment proposals capacity funding, cofinancing requirements, and GEF modalities development initiatives for GEF-6 (including NPFE) that was inadequate. aim to instill a more comprehensive understanding of the GEF in partners and stakeholders at the country level, Recommendations especially in LDCs and SIDS ●● The NPFE initiative should continue since it is highly ●● Update NPFE guidelines to address country program- relevant to supporting countries in addressing the pre- ming information needs on topics such as eligibility cri- identification phase of the project cycle. teria, cofinancing expectations, and funding modalities ●● The revised NPFE needs to continue to be implemented by the Secretariat, to maintain neutrality between coun- tries and Agencies, and to provide funding for a country- The GEF Independent Evaluation Office is an independent entity reporting directly to the GEF Council, mandated to evaluate the led NPFE on a voluntary basis. focal area programs and priorities of the GEF. The full version of Midterm Evaluation of the National Portfolio Formulation Exer- ●● Programming exercises should be supported at the end cise (Evaluation Report No. 93) is available on the GEF Indepen- of a GEF phase rather than at the start of a new phase, dent Evaluation Office website, www.gefeo.org. For more infor- to ensure that countries are ready for the new phase mation, please contact the Office at gefevaluation@thegef.org.