1 / 10

Carlo Carugi Senior Evaluation Officer

Country Portfolio Evaluations FY10 Turkey – Moldova (1992-2009) Aims, scope, methodology and preliminary findings Istanbul, April 14-15, 2010. Carlo Carugi Senior Evaluation Officer. Definitions.

landon
Download Presentation

Carlo Carugi Senior Evaluation Officer

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Country Portfolio Evaluations FY10 Turkey – Moldova (1992-2009) Aims, scope, methodology and preliminary findingsIstanbul, April 14-15, 2010 Carlo Carugi Senior Evaluation Officer

  2. Definitions • Country Portfolio Evaluations (CPEs) are conducted by the GEF Evaluation Office to assess the totality of GEF support across all GEF Agencies and programs in a country • Usually, CPEs are conducted by a team of independent international and national experts (Ecorys Ltd. for Turkey and Milieu Ltd. for Moldova) • In CPEs the country is used as the unit of analysis • CPEs assess the relevance, efficiency and results of GEF projects at the country level, to see: • How these projects perform in producing results • How the results are linked to national environmental and sustainable development agendas as well as to global environmental benefits

  3. Purpose of CPEs To provide feedback and knowledgesharing to: • The GEF Council, in its decision making on resource allocation and policy and strategy development, • The National Government, on its participation in the GEF, and • To the Agencies and Organizations involved in the preparation and implementation of GEF-funded projects and activities.

  4. Projects Included in the CPE • All nationally implemented GEF supported projects (FSP, MSP, EAs, SGP) at different stages of the project cycle (pipeline, on-going and completed) and implemented by all GEF Agencies in all focal areas • Regional and global projects are selected for review on the basis of the following: • Existence of a Project Coordination Unit and/or sites in the country • Existence of a clear connection to national projects • The project is in a focal area that is of particular relevance for the country • The Turkey CPE reviewed 13 national projects and 10 regional projects (Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea). The Moldova CPE reviewed 14 national projects and 12 regional and global projects (Danube/Black Sea Basin, Convention related)

  5. CPE Focus Relevance The extent to which the objectives of a GEF Activity are consistent with beneficiary requirements, country needs, global priorities, and partner and donor policies. Efficiency A measure of how economically resources/inputs (such as funds, expertise, and time, etc.) are converted to results through the execution of activities Effectiveness and Results The output, outcome, or impact (intended or unintended, positive and/or negative) of a GEF Activity

  6. Methodology and Process Methods used • Desk review of project documents, and literature review • Protocols for project reviews • Global environmental benefits assessment • Country’s environmental legal framework • Portfolio analysis • Field visits • Two Review of Outcomes to Impact studies • Triangulation analysis matrix of findings Final Steps • Draft CPE report (ongoing), to be circulated for comments • Final CPE report, which includes feedback received • Ask for a management response (Council and Governments) • Consolidate Turkey and Moldova CPE in the ACPER, and present it to GEF Council (end of June)

  7. Preliminary Findings (I) Relevance • GEF support is relevant to national development and environment priorities (except for LD), as well as to international conventions. In Turkey, the EU accession process is key. • GEF support in the two countries is particularly relevant to BD and IW, and to POPs in Moldova. GEF support to CC, which started recently in Turkey, is also relevant. • Country ownership and drive are limited, but improving in Turkey, where a national GEF mechanism is in place since the introduction of the RAF.

  8. Preliminary Findings (II) Efficiency • Time spans for project preparation and implementation are better than average figures in the GEF worldwide. However, mixed perceptions on complexity and duration of GEF projects exist in-country. • Information sharing and cross-learning is limited (weak M&E, little cross-agency learning in Turkey; weak dissemination of lessons, lack of strategic guidance from the FP mechanism despite positive involvement of Convention FPs in Moldova). • Implementation of participatory approaches has been mixed (difficult to move out of top-down forest management in Turkey, insufficient beneficiaries’ involvement during project preparation leading to local conflicts in Moldova).

  9. Preliminary Findings (III) Effectiveness and Results • More results are observable in Turkey than in Moldova, where many GEF projects just started (IW, BD. • In Moldova GEF contributed to good results in POPs. A number of good EAs helped the country to report to UN Conventions. Results in other focal areas are still limited. • In Turkey GEF contributed to successful results in BD and IW. In other focal areas good things have been done with small funds. SGP links successfully local development and environment protection needs. • Sustainability is a challenge (lack of institutional and financial capacity in Moldova, need for participating countries commitment in IW for Turkey).

  10. Discussion • Questions for clarification? • Any other comment/request? • Thank you

More Related