Evaluation Findings 2018-21 - Global Environment Facility
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Independent Evaluation Office
of the Global Environment Facility
Evaluation
Findings
2018–21
April 2021Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 Performance, sustainability, and scale-up of GEF interventions . . 5
3 Focal area impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4 GEF modalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5 GEF support to countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6 GEF support to innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
© 2021 Global Environment Facility Independent Evaluation Office
1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20433
Internet: www.gefieo.org/; email: gefevaluation@thegef.org
7 The GEF’s engagement with the private sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Reproduction permitted provided source is acknowledged. Please cite the work as follows: Global Environment Facility Independent
Evaluation Office (GEF IEO), Evaluation Findings 2018–21: Highlights, Evaluation Report No. 145, Washington, DC: GEF IEO, 2021.
The findings, interpretations, and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
8 The institutional framework of the GEF: policies and systems . . 79
9 The GEF’s comparative advantage in building a greener future . 95
GEF Council or the governments it represents.
This report was presented at the first GEF‑8 replenishment meeting, April 2021.
All dollar amounts are U.S. dollars unless otherwise indicated.
ISBN: 978-1-64233-031-1
Annex: OPS7 approach paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Task Team Leader and Chief Evaluator: Geeta Batra
GEF IEO Director: Juha Uitto
Editing and design: Nita Congress
02 iAcknowledgments
1
Introduction
T T
he material presented in this highlights IEO TEAM his report is a first presentation by the Continued poverty and worsening inequality
report is drawn from draft and final eval- Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) of around the world are themselves closely linked
uation reports prepared by staff and Director: Juha Uitto the Global Environment Facility (GEF) of with the environmental crises and therefore are
consultants of the Independent Evaluation Office Chief Evaluator and Deputy Director: Geeta Batra the main findings of the evaluations that under- of direct relevance to the GEF’s mandate. In this
(IEO) of the Global Environment Facility (GEF). Senior Evaluator: Carlo Carugi pin the Seventh Comprehensive Evaluation of the context, OPS7 aims to contribute to how the GEF
This report could not have been prepared with- Senior Evaluator: Neeraj Negi GEF (OPS7), prepared to inform negotiations for can most effectively support countries in moving
out the timely and invaluable assistance of the Senior Evaluator: Anna Viggh the eighth replenishment of the GEF. The present toward a green future.
IEO task team leaders and staff in providing doc- Evaluator: Anupam Anand report includes key findings from completed and
umentation and verifying information. The IEO Evaluator: Jeneen Garcia ongoing IEO evaluations. The full OPS7 report will Consistent with previous overall performance
would also like to acknowledge the time and con- Evaluator: Gabriel Sidman be made available for the second replenishment studies (OPSs) and the GEF Instrument, the aim
tributions of the GEF Agencies, the GEF Scientific Evaluator: Kate Steingraber meeting in September 2021. of OPS7 is to assess the extent to which the GEF
and Technical Advisory Panel, the GEF Secretar- Evaluator: Kseniya Temnenko is achieving its objectives as established by the
iat, the operational and country focal points, the Evaluation Analyst: Sara El Choufi The GEF-8 replenishment takes place at a time GEF Instrument, in reviews by the GEF Assem-
GEF Council, and civil society. Evaluation Analyst: Molly Watts when the world is facing multiple challenges. Cli- bly, and as developed and adopted by the GEF
Evaluation Analyst: Peixuan Zhou mate change impacts are already felt in terms of Council in operational policies and programs for
Senior Officer: Juan Portillo increasing weather anomalies, and awareness GEF-financed activities, with a view to identifying
Information Analyst: Francisco Grahammer of the risks is at an all-time high—while effec- areas for potential improvement going forward.
Research Analyst: Malac Kabir tive solutions to address climate change are still The Council-approved approach paper for OPS7 is
Administrative Professional: Evelyn Chihuguyu needed. At the same time, ecosystem destruc- included in the annex to this report.
Administrative Professional: Manuella Koukoui tion, deforestation, and biodiversity loss continue
Chief Editor: Nita Congress unabated; and there is a pollution and waste crisis In all, 34 evaluations have been conducted over
that receives much less attention but has severe the OPS7 period: 20 are completed (box 1.1), and
effects on the environment and human health. 14 are ongoing (box 1.2). This report presents
Overuse of natural resources and environmen- key findings from all of the completed evalua-
tal degradation have direct bearing on people’s tions that have been presented to the GEF Council
well-being and food security, as both terrestrial and preliminary findings from most of the ongo-
and marine ecosystems are stressed. ing evaluations.1 The status of each individual
The COVID-19 pandemic that has defined 2020–21
is primarily seen as a health crisis with seri- 1
Not all of these evaluations are delineated separately in
the following pages. Notably, evidence from the Evaluation
ous social and economic impacts, but it is driven of Health Co-Benefits of GEF Interventions in Chemicals
by the overuse and abuse of the natural envi- and Waste and An Evaluative Approach to Assessing GEF’s
Additionality is drawn upon, but the details of these evalua-
ronment—demonstrating how ecosystem health tions are not summarized here. We also draw on the findings
and human health are inextricably intertwined. of the special report Lessons for COVID-19 from GEF IEO
Evaluations.
ii 12 Evaluation Findings 2018–21: Highlights 1: Acknowledgments 3
of focus is GEF support in promoting environ- A P P RO AC H A N D M E T H O D S
BOX 1.1 Completed evaluations (2018–21) BOX 1.2 Ongoing evaluations (2018–21) mental outcomes and sustainability in countries,
Key evaluation parameters—such as relevance,
captured in the strategic country cluster evalua-
1. Evaluation of Health Co-Benefits of GEF 1. Evaluation of GEF Engagement with Micro,
impact, performance, and the catalytic role of the
Interventions in Chemicals and Waste Small, and Medium Enterprises tions of least developed countries, Africa’s Sahel
GEF—that were investigated in earlier OPSs are
2. Lessons for COVID-19 from GEF IEO 2. Evaluation of Institutional Policies and and Sudan-Guinea Savanna biomes, and small
Evaluations Engagement at the GEF now a part of the regular work program of the
island developing states; and GEF performance in
IEO and addressed in all component OPS7 eval-
3. Evaluation of GEF Support in Fragile and 3. Evaluation of GEF Support to High GEF Recip- fragile states. The GEF’s role in supporting coun-
Conflict-Affected Situations ient Countries uations. Every component evaluation adopts a
tries through various mechanisms such as the
4. Least Developed Countries Strategic Country 4. Comparative Advantage and Governance of mixed-methods approach utilizing quantitative
Small Grants Programme, the medium-size proj-
Cluster Evaluation the GEF and qualitative data sources as appropriate. These
ect modality, and the Country Support Program
5. Strategic Country Cluster Evaluation: Sahel 5. A Formative Evaluation of the GEF Integrated methods include desk research, portfolio analy-
are addressed. The GEF realizes that to achieve
and Sudan-Guinea Savanna Biomes Approach to Address the Drivers of Environ- sis, surveys, interviews, and geospatial analyses.
mental Degradation results at scale requires strong partnerships, par-
6. Strategic Country Cluster Evaluation: Small Since OPS6, the IEO has also explored the factors
Island Developing States 6. Results-Based Management and Portal and ticularly with the private sector. The GEF’s role
affecting the sustainability of GEF interventions
Results Architecture in supporting micro, small, and medium enter-
7. Evaluation of GEF Interventions in Interna- and focused on the innovation and additionality of
tional Waters: Freshwater and Fisheries 7. Evaluation of GEF Support to Sustainable Forest prises as well as early-stage start-ups—which
Management and REDD+ the GEF.
8. Evaluation of GEF Interventions in the Artis- together constitute most of the private sector in
anal and Small-Scale Gold Mining Sector 8. Climate Change Resilience Mainstreaming GEF client countries—is assessed.
OPS7 will draw on evaluation evidence accumu-
9. Review of the GEF Terminal Evaluation Vali- 9. Evaluation of the GEF Wildlife Program
lated by the IEO during the period 2018–21. It will
dation Process In addition to the above, this report includes an
10. Evaluation of the Nongrant Instrument also draw on completed evaluations undertaken
10. Evaluation of the GEF-UNIDO Global assessment of institutional issues, including the
11. Agency Self-Evaluation Systems by other independent evaluation offices of GEF
Cleantech Innovation Programme implementation of GEF policies related to gender;
12. Innovation in the GEF Agencies during the OPS7 period.
11. Evaluation of GEF Support to Scaling Up safeguards, engagement with stakeholders, civil
Impact 13. Evaluation of GEF Enabling Activities society, the private sector, and indigenous peo-
In light of the travel restrictions imposed by the
12. Evaluation of the GEF Country Support 14. Program Evaluation of the Special Climate ples; as well as institutional processes, including
Program Change Fund global pandemic, OPS7 and some of the ongo-
results-based management and knowledge
13. Third Joint GEF-UNDP Evaluation of the ing evaluations significantly draw on on-line
management.
Small Grants Programme data gathering efforts, geospatial analysis, and
14. Evaluation of the Role of Medium-Size Proj- evaluation (completed or ongoing) is provided data collected during previous field missions.
Focal area studies on climate change, biodi-
ects in the GEF partnership Thirty-two missions were carried out for the
throughout the report, and the findings are clearly versity, international waters, and chemicals
15. Evaluation of GEF Support to Mainstreaming labeled as either “key” or “preliminary.” All find- evaluations included in OPS7. The IEO has also
Biodiversity and waste are ongoing. Evaluations on the GEF
ings presented in this report, regardless of status, worked closely with local consultants to assist
high-recipient countries, resilience, and the
16. Evaluation of Knowledge Management in the
have been discussed with GEF management. with field work. The overall aim is to distill evi-
GEF enabling activity modality, are similarly ongo-
dence from a variety of sources to provide insights
17. Value for Money Analysis of GEF Interventions ing, as is an update on the GEF wildlife program.
in Support of Sustainable Forest Management into the role the GEF has played—and could
Some preliminary findings from these are noted
18. An Evaluative Approach to Assessing GEF’s
OPS7 THEMES AND here; the full findings, conclusions, and recom-
potentially play—within governments and in GEF
Additionality EMPHASES mendations will be included in the September
Agencies in supporting the environmental agenda.
19. Program Evaluation of the Least Developed OPS7 is assessing the GEF’s progress on imple- 2021 OPS7 report.
Countries Fund
mentation and achievement of the GEF 2020
20. Annual Performance Report 2020: GEF Sup-
Strategy against the objectives of greater integra-
port to Sustainable Transport
tion, innovation, scaling up, and achieving impacts
with greater efficiency. A significant thematic area2
Performance, sustainability,
and scale-up of GEF
interventions
T
his section presents an analysis of the the extent to which a completed project achieved
performance and sustainability of Global the outcomes expected at implementation com-
Environment Facility (GEF) projects pletion. Cumulatively, 80 percent of all the rated
based on terminal evaluations. Postcompletion projects, which account for 78 percent of GEF
evaluation reports based on field verifications— grants, are rated in the satisfactory range for out-
conducted at least two years or more after project comes. Seventy-nine percent of the projects of
completion—were reviewed for 62 completed the Seventh Comprehensive Evaluation of the GEF
projects. We also include findings and lessons (OPS7) cohort were rated in the satisfactory range
from an evaluation on the GEF’s experience in for outcomes, which is similar to the results for
scaling up impacts, which is an important ele- the OPS6 cohort. Analysis based on the replen-
ment of the GEF Strategy and a mechanism for ishment period of project approval shows that,
achieving broader adoption. to date, 88 percent of completed projects from
the GEF‑5 replenishment period are in the sat-
isfactory range; note, however, that a significant
O U TC O M E S A N D number of the projects from this period are still
S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y AT under implementation (figure 2.1).
COMPLETION
Project sustainability ratings have improved
Eighty percent of GEF projects have satisfac-
over time. The sustainability rating estimates the
tory outcomes. The outcome rating assesses
extent to which a project’s outcomes are durable
FIGURE 2.1 Percentage of projects with outcomes rated in the satisfactory range by replenishment
period
74% 80% 78% 78% 82% 88% 79% 79% 80%
Pilot GEF-1 GEF-2 GEF-3 GEF-4 GEF-5 OPS6 cohort OPS7 cohort All projects
(n = 76) (n = 112) (n = 296) (n = 476) (n = 568) (n = 153) (n = 581) (n = 499) (n = 1,351)
SOURCE: APR2020 data set.
NOTE: Data for GEF‑5 and the OPS7 cohort are incomplete. Complete data for OPS7 will be available in June 2021.
56 Evaluation Findings 2018–21: Highlights 2: Performance, sustainability, and scale-up of GEF interventions 7
and the project is likely to achieve its expected to be assessed at least a few years after imple- TABLE 2.1 Sustainability ratings at implementation completion versus postcompletion
long-term impact. Cumulatively, 62 percent of the mentation completion to assess actual project Observed sustainability at postcompletion evaluation
completed projects are rated in the likely range sustainability. Independent postcompletion eval- Sustainable range Unsustainable range Total
for sustainability (figure 2.2). Sixty-four percent of uation reports—based on field verifications % No. % No. % No.
the completed projects of the OPS7 cohort were conducted at least two years or more after proj- Likely to be sustainable 60 37 15 9 74 46
Projected
rated in the likely range for sustainability, which ect completion—were reviewed for 62 completed sustainability at Unlikely to be sustainable 11 7 10 6 21 13
is similar to the 63 percent for the OPS6 cohort. projects. These verifications were conducted implementation Not rated 3 2 2 1 5 3
Replenishment period–based analysis gives a through December 2019. The results of this completion
Total 74 46 26 16 100 62
clearer picture. It shows that projects that were review show that projects that were projected as
SOURCE: GEF IEO APR2020 data set; review of postcompletion evaluations.
approved in GEF‑4 and GEF‑5 have higher sus- likely to be sustainable did in fact generally sus-
tainability ratings than those approved in the tain during the postcompletion period (table 2.1).
preceding periods. This indicates an improvement For the vast majority of projects analyzed, risks
TABLE 2.2 Change in sustainability outlook of completed projects
over time in the likelihood of sustainability for to the sustainability outlook at closure remain
completed projects. the same or improve from the point of imple- Change in likelihood of sustainability at postcompletion versus completion
mentation completion to the postcompletion Higher Same Lower Unable to assess Total
assessment (table 2.2). These results were also % No. % No. % No. % No. % No.
P O S TC O M P L E T I O N confirmed in the strategic country cluster evalua- Projected
Likely range 13 8 37 23 13 8 11 7 74 46
S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y tions reported on in section 5. sustainability Unlikely range 5 3 11 7 2 1 3 2 21 13
at project Not rated 0 0 3 2 0 0 2 1 5 3
Projects that are assessed as likely to be sus- completion
Country context, quality of implementation, Total 18 11 52 32 15 9 16 10 100 62
tainable at implementation completion are
and quality of execution affect likelihood of SOURCE: GEF IEO APR2020 data set; review of postcompletion evaluations.
observed to be actually sustainable during the
sustainability. This finding from the postcom-
postcompletion period. At project completion,
pletion review confirms the OPS6 finding and
assessment of sustainability is based on a future
is consistent with findings from the strategic
outlook of sustainability, as sufficient time has not complementary legal and regulatory measures, Greater incidence of broader adoption processes
country cluster evaluations. The review found
elapsed to provide evidence. The long-term con- financial support for follow-up, and sustained is reported at postcompletion than at implemen-
factors such as stakeholder and/or beneficiary
tinuation of project benefits and progress need efforts by the executing agency to be import- tation completion. Figure 2.3 compares reported
buy-in, political support including adoption of
ant determinants of sustainability. The review incidence of broader adoption processes in post-
also found a statistically significant correlation completion evaluation reports and in terminal
between materialized cofinancing and the qual- evaluations. The comparison shows that incidence
FIGURE 2.2 Percentage of projects with sustainability of outcomes rated in the likely range by ity of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) design of broader adoption processes such as sustaining,
replenishment period
(which is a proxy for project design) and the like- mainstreaming, and market change was higher at
lihood of sustainability ratings. A comparison by postcompletion than at implementation comple-
region shows that projects in Africa have an over- tion. The mechanism of scaling-up and the factors
all lower likelihood of sustainability than projects affecting scaling-up are presented later in this
47% 60% 60% 59% 67% 67% 63% 64% 62%
in other regions. These sustainability ratings in section.
Africa show nominal—but not statistically signif-
icant—improvement across the replenishment Increase in broader adoption is reported in a
periods. Improvement in the sustainability ratings greater number of project activities at post-
Pilot GEF-1 GEF-2 GEF-3 GEF-4 GEF-5 OPS6 cohort OPS7 cohort All projects
(n = 70) (n = 105) (n = 279) (n = 458) (n = 536) (n = 140) (n = 545) (n = 462) (n = 1,593) of projects in Asia and of global projects is more completion. The review showed a statistically
pronounced and statistically significant. significant increase in the percentages of projects
SOURCE: APR2020 data set.
NOTE: Data for GEF‑5 and the OPS7 cohort are incomplete. Complete data for OPS7 will be available in June 2021. for which activities related to the broader adoption8 Evaluation Findings 2018–21: Highlights 2: Performance, sustainability, and scale-up of GEF interventions 9
FIGURE 2.3 Incidence of broader adoption processes in projects at implementation completion and FIGURE 2.4 Projects with implementation/execution quality rated in the satisfactory range by GEF
postcompletion: percentage of projects replenishment period
74% Postcompletion Implementation Execution
Sustaining***
42% Completion
53%
Mainstreaming**
34%
73% 77% 80% 80% 82% 89% 80% 80% 81%
Replication 45%
55% 74% 75% 77% 85% 93% 79% 84% 81%
35%
Upscaling 29%
16%
Pilot GEF-1 GEF-2 GEF-3 GEF-4 GEF-5 OPS6 cohort OPS7 cohort All projects
37% (n = 60, 62) (n = 58, 61) (n = 198, 202) (n = 453, 447) (n = 543, 530) (n = 150, 141) (n = 547, 547) (n = 483, 456) (n = 1,467, 1,448)
Market change**
16%
SOURCE: APR2020 data set.
SOURCE: Review of postcompletion evaluations. NOTE: Data for GEF‑5 and the OPS7 cohort are incomplete. Complete data for OPS7 will be available in June 2021.
NOTE: n = 62. Confidence levels: ** = 95 percent; *** = 99 percent.
Executing agencies are responsible for execu- M O N I TO R I N G A N D
of technology dissemination, governance arrange- based on an assessment of the performance of tion of project activities on the ground under E VA LU AT I O N
ments (including development of legal and policy the GEF Agency. It reflects the extent to which the the supervision of the GEF Agency. This involves
There is an improving trend in the quality
measures), and management approaches (includ- GEF Agency has performed its role satisfactorily activities such as execution of project design, pro-
of M&E design and its implementation (fig-
ing development of management plans and in project identification and preparation, start-up, curement, stakeholder consultations, and project
ure 2.5). Project monitoring involves the design
strategies) at postcompletion (table 2.3). supervision, application of GEF policies and pro- monitoring. Project execution is assessed to be
and implementation of an M&E plan to track
cedures, and project M&E. It also reflects the in the satisfactory range for 80 percent of the
implementation progress and results. GEF Agen-
extent to which the GEF Agency took timely cor- projects of the OPS7 cohort. Cumulatively, proj-
cies include an M&E plan in the project design
I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D rective actions when gaps in project design and ect execution is assessed to be satisfactory for
and implement this plan during project imple-
EXECUTION implementation were found. Figure 2.4 presents 81 percent of projects (figure 2.4). Overall, based
mentation. An M&E plan is expected to specify
trends across the replenishment periods during on the replenishment period in which projects are
Of the completed projects of the OPS7 cohort, indicators to track processes and results, respon-
which projects were approved. Improvement in approved, there is an improving trend in the exe-
84 percent were rated in the satisfactory range sibilities, frequency of data collection, reporting
implementation ratings is noted for the GEF‑4 and cution rating.
for implementation and 80 percent for execu-
GEF‑5 replenishment periods.
tion. The quality of the implementation rating is
FIGURE 2.5 Projects with M&E design/implementation rated in the satisfactory range by GEF
replenishment period
M&E design M&E implementation
TABLE 2.3 Broader adoption processes and the elements adopted: percentage of projects
Sustaining Mainstreaming Replication Upscaling Market change
PC C PC C PC C PC C PC C
41% 66% 64% 60% 67% 80% 62% 67% 65%
Technology dissemination 27 **
8 **
5 5 27 *
11 * *
11 3 31 **
11**
35% 40% 58% 63% 73% 87% 62% 77% 66%
Governance arrangements 39** 18** 44*** 16*** 3 2 10 10 16 6
Management approaches 40*** 15*** 5 6 11 10 10 5 3 0
Pilot GEF-1 GEF-2 GEF-3 GEF-4 GEF-5 OPS6 cohort OPS7 cohort All projects
Institutional capacities 39 31 16 8 23 13 13 3 11 3 (n = 66, 41) (n = 87, 71) (n = 264, 233) (n = 470, 451) (n = 565, 549) (n = 154, 150) (n = 570, 546) (n = 495, 482) (n = 1,611, 1,498)
SOURCE: Review of postcompletion evaluations. SOURCE: APR2020 data set.
NOTE: n = 62. C = project completion; PC = postcompletion. Confidence levels: * = 90 percent; ** = 95 percent; *** = 99 percent. NOTE: Data for GEF‑5 and the OPS7 cohort are incomplete. Complete data for OPS7 will be available in June 2021.10 Evaluation Findings 2018–21: Highlights 2: Performance, sustainability, and scale-up of GEF interventions 11
procedures, and budget for monitoring activi- materialized; for 16 percent, less than half of the environmental benefits, such as within a specific develop a sense of ownership for the intervention,
ties. Where required, an M&E plan may need to be promised cofinancing materializes. The OPS7 market or other system. Scaling-up takes place and those that make the benefits of adopting the
updated/modified during implementation. Qual- cohort performance is broadly in the same range through the following mechanisms: intervention clear and salient.
ity of M&E design and implementation are rated to as the average—although for a higher percent-
reflect the extent to which an M&E plan was well age of its projects, less than half of the promised ■ Replication refers to implementing the same For the relevant stakeholders to implement
designed and well implemented. Sixty-six per- cofinancing materialized. intervention multiple times, thereby increasing interventions that generate impact, supporting
cent of the projects were rated in the satisfactory the number of stakeholders and/or covering institutions must sustain the enabling conditions
range for quality of M&E design. Sixty-five per- larger areas, usually by leveraging finance, for implementation. All successful cases received
cent of the projects were rated in the satisfactory S CA L E - U P knowledge, and/or policy. some form of support for longer than one project
range for M&E implementation. Overall, there is ■ Mainstreaming involves integrating an cycle, mainly from their respective governments.
an improving trend. intervention within an institution’s regular This evaluation and other research has found that,
Evaluation of GEF Support to
operations, usually through a policy or law. in general, sustained support of 10–20 years is
Scaling Up Impact
While mainstreaming typically occurs within a necessary for scaling-up to take place.
COFINANCING STATUS: Presented to Council specific national or local government agency,
REPORT: https://www.gefieo.org/evaluations/scaling Three factors emerged as important in ensur-
it may also occur simultaneously through
The average materialized cofinancing is 125 per- ing long-term support for scaling-up processes.
multiple government agencies or in other
cent of the amount promised at project start; This evaluation draws on previous GEF experience These are (1) becoming a political priority,
institutions, such as donors, civil society orga-
in 66 percent of projects, at least 90 percent of in scaling-up to better understand the processes (2) gaining the support of political and economic
nizations, or private companies.
the promised cofinancing materialized. Data on through which scale-up occurs and the conditions influencers, and (3) working through existing
materialized cofinancing are available for 1,430 under which it is effectively achieved. ■ Linking is the implementation of multi-
long-term structures. All of these factors may be
projects (table 2.4). The data show that, on aver- ple types of interventions that, by design, all
influenced by a program’s appropriate choices
age, the realized financing is higher than the Scaling-up is an increase in the magnitude of contribute to the same impact at the scale
of people and institutions to work with, and
promised amount. In 66 percent of the projects, global environmental benefits and/or expansion of of a system defined by environmental, eco-
through participatory processes and knowledge
at least 90 percent of the promised cofinancing geographical and sectoral areas covered by global nomic, or administrative boundaries. Among
dissemination.
the systems mentioned were landscape, sea-
scape, ecoregion, value chain, and national For scaling-up processes to be sustained,
TABLE 2.4 Cofinancing materialized government. supporting institutions have to learn from sys-
Cofinancing Cofinancing < 90% > 50% tematic feedback that will allow them to adapt
promised materialized Materialization materialization materialization
the scaling-up process to changing contexts and
Period/cohort n per $ of GEF grant ($) ratio % of projects KEY FINDINGS
make it more cost-effective. Systematic learning
Pilot 59 6.80 6.54 0.96 67 16
Key factors influencing the scaling-up pro- mechanisms usually took the form of knowledge
GEF-1 93 2.86 2.34 0.82 55 17
cess cluster around three key actions: adoption exchange networks and regular multistakeholder
GEF-2 253 4.91 5.83 1.19 71 11
of the intervention, sustained support for scal- meetings.
GEF-3 408 4.59 5.59 1.21 67 16
ing activities, and learning for adaptability and
GEF-4 492 6.53 10.02 1.54 64 19
cost-effectiveness.
GEF-5 120 5.96 5.86 0.98 68 19 MAIN CONCLUSIONS
GEF-6 5 8.94 9.27 1.04 80 0
For impact to be scaled up, the relevant
■ The GEF’s focus on scaling is more explicit
OPS6 cohort 476 5.82 7.78 1.34 65 16 stakeholders must first want to implement inter-
than in many other international development
OPS7 cohort 427 6.91 8.66 1.25 60 23 ventions that generate impact. Factors that
institutions. But like other institutions, the
All projects 1,430 5.18 6.49 1.25 66 16 contribute to stakeholder willingness to adopt
GEF’s vision for scaling-up is not consistently
SOURCE: APR 2020 data set. interventions cluster into two types: those that
NOTE: n = projects for which full data are reported.3
12 Evaluation Findings 2018–21: Highlights
Focal area impacts
clear in operational guidance across its ■ The GEF’s own comparative advantage lies in
portfolio. supporting pilots that demonstrate positive
■ The GEF uses multiple modes—replication, benefits and establishing enabling condi-
mainstreaming, and linking—to scale up inter- tions for scale-up (figure 2.6). These strengths
ventions that generate global environmental attract support from other actors that then
benefits, drawing on the comparative advan- provide funding for full scale-up.
tages of GEF partners. ■ The extent of GEF support to scale-up and
T
the rate at which outcomes are scaled vary by his section delves deeper into a single interventions and identified good practices and
focal area, but typically take place over more theme in each focal area and Sustainable challenges.
than five years and generate higher outcomes Forest Management (SFM), presenting
FIGURE 2.6 GEF comparative advantage in scaling
per GEF dollar per year during the scaling-up examples of impacts of Global Environment Facil- The GEF has been instrumental in supporting
GEF grants are used stage. Indicators used between the pilot and ity (GEF) interventions. In biodiversity, the focus is national policy reform and planning frameworks
to show evidence of
benefits scale-up stages were not always consistent, on biodiversity mainstreaming, in climate change that promote biodiversity considerations across
GEF niche limiting the ability to track progress. we present an analysis of the GEF’s interven- sectors and territories. The GEF’s biodiversity
in scale-up
Scale of impact
process tions in the transport sector; in the chemicals and mainstreaming portfolio has played a significant
Scaling-up ■ The GEF has contributed to postproject con-
waste focal area, we present the findings of the role in supporting implementation of the global
Pilot for tinuation of scaled-up activities by catalyzing
scaling-up Convention on Biological Diversity and its mem-
sustainable financing sources and strength- artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM)
Pilot in specific
context GEF Agencies play program; and in international waters, we discuss ber countries. GEF-supported projects include
different roles in
ening institutional capacities. Political and
Pilot for proof
the GEF’s interventions in the fisheries sector. components and activities to address threats to
of concept scaling-up economic changes pose risks to long-term
In SFM, we present the findings from a value for biodiversity and/or mitigate adverse effects on
Time sustainability of scaling-up activities.
money analysis of GEF interventions in SFM. The biodiversity of global importance. Projects adopt
evolution and adaptation of the respective strat- diverse approaches such as the extension of
egies over time and key portfolio findings will be landscape management practices, agroforestry,
presented in the OPS7 report in September 2021. and sustainable production systems, and bio-
The focal area studies were carried out over a logical connectivity linking vulnerable forests to
two-year period; consequently, the analysis is protected areas. Implementation strategies are
based on data available at the time. integrative and multitiered. The GEF’s theory of
change for mainstreaming biodiversity provides a
sound conceptual basis for their design and evalu-
BIODIVERSITY ation. The current monitoring and evaluation (M&E)
framework for GEF biodiversity projects does not
appear to focus sufficiently on quantitative mea-
Evaluation of GEF Support to
sures and outcomes and impacts, or on capturing
Mainstreaming Biodiversity
socioeconomic co-benefits which are important
STATUS: Presented to Council since mainstreaming projects often entail balanc-
REPORT: https://www.gefieo.org/evaluations/ ing trade-offs between socioeconomic benefits and
biodiversity-mainstreaming-2018 environmental impacts.
This evaluation assessed the relevance, perfor- Most of the GEF projects in this portfolio have
mance, effectiveness, results, and additionality successfully elevated biodiversity conservation
of GEF-supported biodiversity mainstreaming to targeted sectors, institutions, policies, and
1314 Evaluation Findings 2018–21: Highlights 3: Focal area impacts 15
territories with globally significant biodiversity. factors that are directly related to the project’s population, affluence, and urban sprawl. Devel- and development was slower than expected. With
A smaller number of projects and national part- implementation performance—efficiency, timely oping and transitional economies, where most time, fuel cell technologies matured and became
ners are successfully accelerating biodiversity output delivery, monitoring, and adaptive man- of these changes are taking place, need to more cost-effective. Building on the foundations
mainstreaming across sectors, institutions, and agement—and to those external to the immediate update their transport infrastructure to meet laid by GEF projects, China is now commercializ-
territories. There are fewer cases of accelerated project context—national capacities and institu- this demand. The GEF has cumulatively provided ing these technologies with—and without—GEF
mainstreaming, by which mainstreaming pro- tional commitment, governance cycles, political $501 million, along with $8.4 billion in partner support. The GEF support to electric/hybrid tech-
cesses gain in scale and momentum and begin to and policy context. The implementation of several cofinancing, through 80 projects to support sus- nologies helped these technologies develop
affect systemic levels. The acceleration of main- mainstreaming projects in the three countries tainable transport in its recipient countries. The faster. In China, these have found considerable
streaming to a broader range and scale involves analyzed—India, South Africa and Colombia—was GEF Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) con- traction among manufacturers and city govern-
incremental processes that build over time and negatively affected by late approvals and start-up, ducted an evaluation to assess the extent to which ments. Learning from these experiences—and
exceed most projects’ lifespan. External factors recruitment delays, and low partner capabilities the GEF support for sustainable transport is well to tap into emerging opportunities—the GEF is
that fall outside most projects’ influence—such and responsiveness. targeted and effective. The evaluation covers 80 focusing on frontier technologies, especially on
as national partners’ capacity and commitment, sustainable transport projects that were approved providing support for the electrification of trans-
governance cycles and political context, resource The GEF biodiversity mainstreaming portfolio has from GEF-2 to GEF-6 period, including 33 com- port. The GEF is now supporting large-scale
availability, and competing sector priorities— contributed to legal, environmental, regulatory, pleted projects approved from GEF-2 to GEF-4. adoption of these technologies and linking the
affect mainstreaming. As a result, many projects governance, and socioeconomic additionalities electrification of transport with the renewable
may require continuity into successive cycles to going beyond incremental cost benefits. These Most GEF sustainable transport projects address energy grid to reduce the carbon footprint. The
accelerate mainstreaming processes that enable include innovative approaches based on multi- aspects related to urban and transport planning. Global Program to Support the Shift to Electric
expected outcomes. Practices such as silvo-pas- stakeholder partnerships that link grassroots GEF-supported integrated land use and trans- Mobility, with over $50 million in GEF funding and
toralism promoted by GEF-supported biodiversity organizations to regional research institutions, port planning activities facilitated transit-oriented $650 million in cofinancing, is a major GEF-7 ini-
mainstreaming projects are being significantly advocacy platforms, and national environmental development in cities such as Mexico City and tiative to achieve these outcomes.
upscaled for biodiversity conservation. authorities. Landscape management practices are Changsha, China. However, in Dushanbe, Tajiki-
validated on the ground and elevated to influence stan, and Tianjin, China, these efforts were less GEF support has been instrumental in the devel-
While the challenges are primarily determined national policy and legislative-regulatory reforms. successful. This was because these projects were opment of bus rapid transit (BRT) systems in
by specific national or landscape contexts, suc- Several projects have contributed to landmark bio- either not aligned with the vision of local decision several major cities. Of the 33 completed proj-
cessful mainstreaming is ultimately influenced diversity legislation; transformed core institutional/ makers or had not adequately addressed policy ects, 17 focused on establishing and/or improving
by the interaction of economic and environ- sector practices; and resulted in measurable con- and regulatory barriers. Experience from projects the efficiency of BRT. GEF support to BRT systems
mental interests, institutional monitoring and servation impacts in forest cover, pasture, and that include traffic demand management–related and BRT-style upgrades has generally focused on
enforcement capacities, and communications other biodiversity indicators. activities shows that such activities are likely to technical assistance and planning, such as the
and outreach capabilities. Other positive fea- be successful when they do not involve trade-offs development of feasibility studies, origin-destina-
tures that facilitate mainstreaming include or make some groups worse off. Where trade-offs tion surveys, and environmental impact studies
preconditions such as well-developed policy and C L I M AT E C H A N G E are involved, commitment from political leader- for BRT corridors. GEF funding has also been
regulatory frameworks for biodiversity conserva- ship and broader public support are important. used for capacity building; updating the legal,
tion, recognized and capable scientific research GEF Support to Sustainable policy, and regulatory framework; and knowl-
institutions and expertise, and a favorable politi- The GEF has facilitated the transformation of edge management. GEF financing helped lay the
Transport
cal environment. Mainstreaming efforts are more markets for fuel cell and electric/hybrid–based groundwork for BRT systems in several major
successful when there are strong government STATUS: Presented to Council mobility technologies. Early GEF experience cities including Mexico City, Mexico; and Dar-
champions who cut across organizational silos. REPORT: https://www.gefieo.org/evaluations/apr- in promoting fuel cell bus technologies in Bra- es-Salaam, Tanzania. Dissemination activities
2019-trasportation zil and China found that the technologies were combined with demonstrations have facilitated
The progress achieved in mainstreaming bio- too expensive to be viable. They were introduced replication in several other cities. For example,
Global demand for transportation is expected to
diversity is directly influenced by intervening before they were ready for commercialization, GEF support to the Lima Urban Transport project
increase substantially because of increases in16 Evaluation Findings 2018–21: Highlights 3: Focal area impacts 17
funded feasibility studies for implementation Performance in meeting GHG abatement targets C H E M I C A L S A N D WA S T E KEY FINDINGS
and optimization of future BRT corridors in Peru, is generally lower than expected at project start.
which have since been implemented. For the 20 projects analyzed, the aggregate esti- During implementation, all three countries had
Evaluation of GEF Interventions some success in reducing mercury use in their
mated GHG emissions abatement was 11.0 million
GEF support for nonmotorized transport has
in the Artisanal and Small-Scale project areas. The projects in Peru and the Phil-
tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO2e), which
generally been implemented satisfactorily, but
Gold Mining Sector ippines also saw some success in creating the
is lower than the 92.9 Mt CO2e expected at proj-
tracking of environmental results is poor among ect start. Eight projects (40 percent) met at least STATUS: Presented to Council groundwork for miner formalization by creat-
these projects. Twenty completed projects have 80 percent of their target. The average cost of REPORT: https://www.gefieo.org/evaluations/gold ing and supporting miners’ associations. In all
promoted nonmotorized transport. The supported GHG emissions abatement is $11.50, with a countries, GEF projects achieved success in
activities include construction and/or repair of median of $12.70 per Mt CO2e. encouraging governments to prioritize mercury
bike lanes and walkways, spaces for bike park- BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE use reductions in ASGM.
ing, demonstration of the bike-share business During implementation, sustainable transport
The GEF began to implement projects to com- Mercury use reductions were mostly sustained
model, awareness campaigns, and preparation of projects often face difficulties in procurement
bat ASGM environmental issues as early as GEF‑2 or continued to drop since project completion.
a nonmotorized transport plan. The GEF generally and coordination. Sixty-eight percent of com-
in 2002 with the Global Mercury Project, greatly In Ecuador, mercury use continues on a down-
avoids financing civil works. Although the incre- pleted sustainable transport have satisfactory
increasing awareness of growing mercury use ward trend, although the replacement technology,
mental environmental benefit rationale provided ratings for quality of implementation, compared to
in the sector. In GEF‑5, the GEF begin funding cyanidation, is also a contaminant if not prop-
for GEF funding for construction and repair of bike 82 percent for the overall GEF portfolio. Informa-
the sector in earnest, with a series of projects erly disposed of. Cyanide is also popular in the
lanes and walkways was generally sound, the IEO tion from terminal evaluations and respondents
implemented by the United Nations Industrial Philippines, where mercury use reductions were
evaluation found some instances where the logic indicates that sustainable transport projects
Development Organization that piloted nonmer- more sustainable in areas with more notable gov-
was not clear. In most instances, these activities require coordination among multiple agencies
cury technologies for gold extraction. With the ernment presence and stricter enforcement of
were implemented effectively. However, tracking and face procurement-related difficulties.
formulation of the Minamata Convention on Mer- mercury use. In West Africa, the installed pro-
of environmental results is limited, and it is diffi-
M&E is generally weak in sustainable transport cury in 2013, the GEF was included in the official cessing plants were still in partial use, although
cult to assess the extent to which these activities
projects. Fewer than half of completed sustain- financial mechanism for the convention, leading miners had returned to using mercury for some
contributed to low-carbon transport.
able transport projects have satisfactory quality of it to significantly ramp up ASGM funding. The GEF processes when they lacked replacement supplies
Overall performance of the sustainable transport M&E design and M&E implementation, compared designed the planetGOLD program in GEF‑6, a or maintenance expertise for project-supported
portfolio is in the same range as other GEF proj- to 70 percent or higher for other climate change nine-country program with a global “hub” project machinery. Formalization had increased sub-
ects. Sustainable transport projects in the large mitigation projects and 67 percent for the GEF to provide coordination, outreach, and knowl- stantially in the Philippines and Peru since
emerging economies are more likely to be rated portfolio overall. Less than half the projects spec- edge management. Additionally, many enabling project completion, where it seems the projects—
in the satisfactory range (92 percent) compared to ify indicators to track GHG emissions abatement activities fund Minamata initial assessments and although not achieving miner formalization during
other recipient countries (50 percent). The projects and/or fuel savings. Designing a robust M&E plan ASGM national action plans, helping countries implementation—served as catalysts for future
where outcomes were rated in the unsatisfactory and specifying appropriate indicators for sustain- meet their convention requirements. A follow-on success. Additionally, all the case study countries
range faced challenges such as high turnover of able transport projects is a challenge because GOLD+ program is being designed to include have ratified the Minamata Convention, showing
project personnel, poor coordination, challenges GEF support is often concentrated in activities another eight countries. their commitment to mercury reduction.
in procurement, insufficient government commit- focused on capacity development; update of legal,
To better understand the sustainability and les- The GOLD program represented a significant
ment/ownership, and low capacity of executing policy, and regulatory frameworks; and knowl-
sons learned of completed ASGM projects and scaling-up of GEF investment in ASGM, with
agencies. In large emerging economies, procure- edge management. Moreover, for legal, policy,
the design of the planetGOLD program, the IEO over $50 million in GEF Trust Fund funding and
ment-related delays tended to be more common. and regulatory contributions, impacts are difficult
conducted case studies of GEF's interventions in over $180 million in cofinancing; in comparison,
The cofinancing ratio for sustainable transport to track within the project time frame.
Burkina Faso–Senegal, Ecuador-Peru, and the the average GEF‑5 project accounted for only
projects is $19 per dollar of GEF grant; this is
Philippines. about $1 million in GEF Trust Fund funding and
higher than for other projects in the GEF portfolio.18 Evaluation Findings 2018–21: Highlights 3: Focal area impacts 19
$2–3 million in cofinancing. The program also Guyana child project addresses ASGM-related and Lake Albert. Regional and global projects The overall main achievements of the GEF inter-
signified a shift in strategy within the GEF. Early deforestation by encouraging landscape man- comprise 79 percent of the fisheries portfolio. national waters fisheries portfolio as noted
projects found a major issue in introducing non- agement plans. None of the projects assist with Of the four regions, Asia has the highest num- in available terminal evaluations are (1) it is
mercury technology to miners—since they were long-term sediment monitoring or working with ber of fisheries projects, while Africa has the responding effectively to the challenge of over-
mostly operating informally, they had little access ASGM-related fishery or watershed manage- largest GEF grant amount. Most fisheries proj- exploitation of marine fishery resources, with
to formal markets. This extended to financing. ment issues directly. The program developed ects (73 percent, equivalent to 72 percent of total special focus on LMEs at the highest risk level
Banks and other formal lenders shied away from the planetGOLD criteria, which address environ- GEF grant amount) are implemented by the World when assessed for risk factors related to fish
working with miners who often had no land ten- mental and social safeguards, but issues such Bank, UNDP and FAO. and fisheries, pollution, ecosystem health, and
ure or in some cases formal permission to mine. as child labor and conflicts between ASG min- human development; (2) it is aligned with global
Without financing, miners could not afford new, ers and indigenous peoples are not focuses of the and regional agreements as well as national pri-
KEY FINDINGS
cleaner technologies that required upfront invest- projects. orities; (3) it has led to stress reduction on fishery
ment. GOLD responded by investing heavily in resources and improved management of marine
GEF international waters approaches to fisheries
access to financing and markets, which makes habitats. Table 3.1 highlights examples of envi-
seek to regulate how fishing is done and not to
up the largest component of the program. At the I N T E R N AT I O N A L WAT E R S merely limit the amount of various species that
ronmental stresses reduced by GEF-supported
country level, projects are training lenders to projects.
can be caught. Different types of approaches have
work with miners and designing sector-specific Evaluation of GEF Interventions been identified in the fisheries portfolio over the
financial mechanisms. The hub project is build- In the Pacific small island developing states
in International Waters: GEF‑1 to GEF‑7 period. In the early GEF phases,
ing bridges with downstream actors in the supply (SIDS), GEF investment has helped 12 SIDS
Freshwater and Fisheries fisheries projects mainly focused on specific fish-
chain, including private refiners, to purchase restructure national legislations to include obli-
eries management interventions that target input
responsibly produced gold from project sites. STATUS: Presented to Council gations associated with becoming a party to the
control (limit access to fish stocks) and techni-
REPORT: https://www.gefieo.org/evaluations/iw- Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention,
study-2020 cal measures (e.g., minimum mesh size for nets,
The GOLD program’s components were widely which is the first major new international fisher-
by-catch reduction devices). During GEF‑4, while
seen as relevant and covering the most import- ies management arrangement established under
GEF support to input control and technical mea-
ant areas requiring attention in the sector. the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement. The
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE sures continued, fisheries management gradually
Beyond financing, the program addresses formal- ongoing GEF investment is providing continuous
shifted from focusing on ecosystem science to
ization, introduction of nonmercury technology, Improving marine and freshwater fisheries man- support to 14 Pacific SIDS to address substantial
incorporating economic development and human
and knowledge management and outreach. The agement and promoting sustainable fishing lags in implementing agreed regional and sub-
behavior change. It has manifested as a widen-
program aims to reduce over 350 tons of mercury, practices has been one of the priorities in the regional arrangements (i.e., Nauru Agreement),
ing scope of fisheries management interventions
although only one-third of reductions will come international waters focal area of the GEF since so that the countries can apply ecosystem-based
that integrate participatory management, fisher
directly from project implementation; the rest is its first phase. This study is an in-depth analysis management measures in accordance with
incentives and livelihood diversification into an
intended to result from spreading knowledge to covering all projects and programs that explicitly revised national laws and fisheries policies.
ecosystem approach to fisheries management.
nonproject sites in GOLD countries and non-GOLD address marine and freshwater fisheries.
Moving on to GEF‑5 and GEF‑6, more attention To better facilitate results reporting, the GEF
countries after project completion. It is unclear
has been given to marine spatial planning, and adopted a new results framework and set a cor-
though how the GEF would monitor or attribute The fisheries portfolio is dominated by invest-
improved monitoring and surveillance practices. porate-level target of bringing 20 percent of
such reductions. ments in large marine ecosystems (LMEs)
The emerging interventions in promoting sus- globally overexploited fisheries to more sustain-
(59 percent), with total funding of more than
The focus on mercury reduction has led the pro- tainable value chains for marine commodities able levels in GEF-6. In the ongoing fisheries
$411.8 million, followed by fisheries projects and
gram to be highly relevant to the Minamata indicate GEF’s efforts in engaging the private sec- projects in GEF-6, 9 of 11 stand-alone projects,
programs in the areas beyond national jurisdic-
Convention. However, it also means GEF ASGM tor in fisheries management, which contribute and four child projects under three programs,
tion (ABNJ) (12 percent). Investment in freshwater
projects do not have a significant focus on other to sustainable resource utilization and equitable together aim to bring 16 percent of overexploited
fisheries is the lowest (3 percent), with $21.2 mil-
environmental issues related to ASGM. Only the social and economic development. fisheries to sustainable levels.
lion for 3 projects in Caspian Sea, Lake Edward20 Evaluation Findings 2018–21: Highlights 3: Focal area impacts 21
TABLE 3.1 Types of stresses reduced by GEF-supported fisheries projects Sustainable financing arrangements have been freshwater fisheries projects in GEF‑6 and GEF‑7.
Type of stress Description of outcome achievements explored with some success. Fisheries projects GEF investments in freshwater lakes and rivers,
Illegal fishing Sierra Leone (GEF ID 3558, GEF-3): 16 arrests of illegal fishing were recorded due to increased have supported suitable economic instruments such as Lake Victoria and the Danube River, have
activities sea patrols using existing equipment. GEF project-funded anti–illegal, unreported, and unreg- that can be used to generate financial support included actions on improving freshwater fisher-
ulated fishing efforts were associated with increased yields for coastal communities; e.g., large after project completion, including government ies management and the conservation of aquatic
fishing communities such as Tombo reported a 42 percent increase in catch.
contribution through institutional budget, estab- biodiversity.
Liberia (GEF ID 3558, GEF-3): Surveillance operations were enhanced through sea and aerial lishing public-private partnerships, collecting
patrols and a satellite-based fishing vessel monitoring system. The indicator on the rate of illegal
user fees, establishing trust funds/endowment Greater attention is needed to sustainable aqua-
fishing gradually dropped from 83 percent at baseline in 2009 to 30 percent in 2016.
funds, and issuing blue bonds. culture. Emphasis so far has been placed on the
Tanzania (GEF ID 2101, GEF-3): Communities’ participation in patrolling activities led to better improvement of wild fisheries management, the
tracking and reducing illegal fishing activities: 134 illegal activities were reported in the main-
land and 75 in Zanzibar. Most of the ongoing fisheries projects have put introduction of less damaging fishing practices
By-catch Global (GEF ID 884, GEF-2): Project reduced the number of juvenile commercial species, non- in place conditions to sustain project benefits and technologies, and protecting marine biodiver-
target fish and nonfish species caught by shrimp trawlers. With experimental by-catch rate through engaging the private sector. For example, sity in the most vulnerable ecosystems. While the
reduction of >40% (Iran, the Philippines) and up to 60% (Mexico), the stress reduction can be sub-
stantial, at least in the pilot areas.
the GEF-6 Coastal Fisheries Initiative Challenge present approaches—based on the assumption
Fund project has been providing technical assis- that wild fisheries can be managed sustainably—
The Philippines (GEF ID 3619, GEF-4): Trawl fishers who installed juvenile and trash fish–
tance to small-scale fisheries businesses to are clearly having short-term positive impacts, a
excluder devices experienced an improvement in catch rates and in the quality of catches, which
attests to the positive environmental impacts of adopting more responsible trawling practices. develop investable projects, covering Indonesia, long-term vision and strategy would be benefi-
Fishing capacity Senegal (GEF ID 3314, GEF-3): With support from the GEF project, the co-management initia- West Africa (Cabo Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, and Sen- cial. Significant wild fisheries have collapsed or
tives that were used to create and allocate the right to manage targeted fisheries have been egal), and Latin America (Ecuador and Peru). In are in danger of collapsing due to overfishing and
successful in reducing overfishing at the four pilot sites.
the Seychelles, the world’s first sovereign blue pollution. Overall, production from the world’s
Sudan and Egypt (GEF ID 3809, GEF-4): At project end, 600 fishers are using the specified mesh bond was launched in 2018 with the support of the wild fisheries has leveled out and may be start-
size and 500 fishers are observing closed season, equal to 200% and 250% of targets, respec-
tively. As a result, species with high commercial value, upon which the communities depend GEF and the World Bank. The blue bond raised ing to decline—in contrast to farmed fisheries and
economically, can now spawn in safe zones and young fish are protected from catch, allowing the $15 million from international investors to sup- mariculture, which are growing in importance and
stock to grow.
port sustainable fisheries. The supply chain are technological in nature. To be more effective
Other economic Indonesia (GEF ID 3188, GEF-4): Reduced the area of uncontrolled sand mining and established
approach has been adopted in fisheries projects within this context, the focal area could explore
development four seagrass sanctuaries.
activities to harness market support to develop sustainable expanding its scope to include substantial support
China (GEF ID 3309, GEF-4): Piloted environmentally friendly activities (silvo-fishery) to reduce value chains. Based on terminal evaluation find- for enhancing the sustainability of aquaculture
impact on the wetlands brought by traditional aquaculture practices.
ings, the engagement with the private sector at and in defining an overall long-term strategy to
Source: Terminal evaluations. the local level is however limited in GEF-funded ensure coherence in its approaches to fisheries.
fisheries projects.
The GEF’s additionality in promoting sustainable in fisheries portfolio. GEF-funded fisheries proj-
Funding allocated to freshwater fisheries has
fisheries is observed in its promoting trans- ects have covered 20 LMEs and the Pacific Ocean
been limited and the lowest in the fisheries port-
boundary ecosystem-based governance in LMEs Warm Pool, and the support is expanding to cover
folio, and accounts for 3 percent of the total
and ABNJ. This includes knowledge genera- more areas. In ABNJ, the GEF-funded Global Sus-
investments in fisheries. Two freshwater fish-
tion, building institutional capacities for informed tainable Fisheries Management and Biodiversity
eries projects in the Caspian Sea in GEF‑3 and
decision making, and the involvement of a broad Conservation in the Areas Beyond National Juris-
GEF‑4 contributed to the implementation of the
range of stakeholders. The fisheries portfolio is diction program has been working to improve
Tehran Convention. The freshwater fisheries proj-
dominated by investments in the LMEs—applying public understanding of ecosystem threats and
ect in GEF‑5 has been working on integrated
the transboundary diagnostic analysis–strategic services related to ABNJ and to strengthen global
fisheries and water resources management
action program (TDA-SAP) methodology—which capacity for effective management in ABNJ.
in Lake Edward and Lake Albert. There are no
accounts for 59 percent of the total GEF grantsYou can also read
