1 / 12

Country Portfolio Evaluation

Country Portfolio Evaluation. Costa Rica The Philippines Samoa. Context for Country Portfolio Evaluation (CPEs). Requested by the GEF Council First CPE in Costa Rica in 2006 as a pilot Samoa and Philippines in 2007 Benin, Cameroon, Madagascar and South Africa in 2007-08

xenos
Download Presentation

Country Portfolio Evaluation

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 Evaluation Costa Rica The Philippines Samoa

  2. Context for Country Portfolio Evaluation (CPEs) • Requested by the GEF Council • First CPE in Costa Rica in 2006 as a pilot • Samoa and Philippines in 2007 • Benin, Cameroon, Madagascar and South Africa in 2007-08 • Before: no GEF assessment at country level • Now: increasing insight in how countries interact with GEF through GEF agencies

  3. Objectives of CPEs • Independently evaluate relevance and efficiency of GEF support: national environmental frameworks, GEF mandate and policies • Assess the effectiveness and results of completed projects per focal area • Provide feedback and knowledgesharing to GEF Council, country and agencies

  4. Key questions: Relevance • Is GEF support relevant to: • national sustainable development and environmental agenda; national development needs and challenges? • the objectives of the different GEB? • Are GEF and its Agencies supporting national priorities and decision-making process? • Is the GEF support in the country relevant to the objectives of the different global environmental benefits (i.e. biodiversity, greenhouse gases, international waters, POPs, land degradation, ozone)? • Is country supporting the GEF mandate with its own resources and/or other donors?

  5. Key questions: Efficiency • How much time, effort and financial resources does it take to develop and implement projects? • What are the roles, responsibilities and synergies among different stakeholders? • Dissemination and outreach of GEF results? • Sustainability of GEF supported activities?

  6. Key questions: Effectiveness and Results • What are the results of projects? • What are the aggregated results at focal area and country levels? • What is the likelihood that objectives will be achieved?

  7. Methodology –a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods • In-depth document review and analysis • Consultation workshops with stakeholders (incl. Government, NGOs and other civil society stakeholders) • In-depth interviews with global, national and local institutions associated with the GEF • Review of the Environmental Legal Framework • Review of the Environmental Political Framework • Assessment of Global Environmental Benefits • Field visits to a number of projects

  8. Evaluation tools: • Evaluation matrix (includes the key questions, indicators/basic data, sources of information, and methodology component). • Structured questionnaires (supporting interviews) • Project review protocol and database • Portfolio Analysis • Stakeholder Analysis • Literature review • Field visits

  9. Focus and coverage • All GEF supported activities – at different stages of the project cycle (pipeline, on-going and completed) and implemented by all Agencies in all focal areas • The aggregate of all these activities is the GEF portfolio • The evaluation will not rate projects, performance of Agencies, nor government

  10. Outcomes from the CPEs • Costa Rica • GEF support is relevant to Costa Rica – to the progress of the country’s environmental agenda. • The GEF support has produced global benefits and is in accordance with the GEF mandate. • Improvements needed in tracking project preparation and general operational information. • Improvements needed in the GEF project approval process. • CPEs are valid and feasible and GEF should continue to conduct CPEs in other countries.

  11. Outcomes from the CPEs • Philippines • GEF support is relevant to the Philippine national development plans and its environmental priorities. • GEF support is relevant to the objectives and mandate of the GEF. • GEF support has produced global environmental benefits, but declining environmental trends and lack of compliance endanger these achievements. • There are several inefficiencies related to the GEF portfolio.

  12. Outcomes from the CPEs • Samoa • GEF support is relevant to the Samoa Development Strategy and national environmental policies. • GEF projects are highly relevant tot GEF mandate and focal areas, but slow follow-up support from government sources could jeopardize sustainability of results. • Completed projects have achieved concrete on the ground results, but reporting not up to standard. • Samoa has improved its efficiency to access GEF funding, but some obstacles remain.

More Related