1. Annual Performance Report 2015
June 2016

2. Background Annual Performance Report (APR) provides an overview of -
Performance of GEF activities and processes
Key factors affecting performance
Quality of M&E
Management Action Record (MAR)
Based primarily on terminal evaluations submitted to the GEF IEO
APR 2015 Cohort: 159 projects, $0.73 billion in GEF grant, $3.3 billion in co-financing
Cumulative: 1,077 projects, $4.8 billion in GEF grant, $22.4 billion in co-financing
APR 2015 is the 12th report in the APR series

3. Coverage APR 2015
Most of the projects included in APR2015 cohort were approved in GEF-4 and GEF-3.
Cumulative coverage of GEF-4 at 29% vis-à-vis GEF-4 approvals

4. APR 2015 Project Mix Project mix varies year to year
Africa representation higher, ECA lower
Climate Change representation higher, Biodiversity lower

5. Outcome Ratings
75% of Projects in APR 2015 have outcomes of MS or higher, compared to long term average of 80%
Cumulative data shows stabilizing or slightly improving trend by replenishment period

6. Sustainability Ratings
67% of projects in the APR 2015 cohort rated ML or higher for sustainability, compared to 61% long term average
Cumulative trend shows increase in ratings over time

7. Quality of Implementation and Execution
Implementation Quality: 75% of APR 2015 cohort projects in the satisfactory range, compared to long term average of 77%
Execution Quality: 72% of APR 2015 cohort projects in the satisfactory range, compared to long term average of 81%
As with outcome ratings, quality of implementation and execution ratings show stabilization or slight upward trend over time

8. Outcome Ratings - by Region
Add all others
Ratings for projects in Africa lower than other regions
Ratings for Africa projects in APR 2015 cohort lower than the long term average for the region

9. Africa Long term averages for Africa region:
Outcomes: 73% compared to 82% for all other regions
Implementation: 67% compared to 80% all other regions
On average projects took 5 months longer in project start up than other regions
Execution: 72% compared to 84% for all other regions
M&E: Design- 51% compared to 63%, Implementation: 49% compared to 67%
Note: comparisons are excluding global
Project start up excluding pilot phase

10. Africa
Findings not unique to GEF projects
WB long term trends- Africa lower 12%
IFAD-West and Central Africa weakest region, Africa lower 10%
Several reports have noted capacity constraints and other challenges in implementation in the region
GEF IEO Country Portfolio Evaluations, WB IEG, IFAD IEO
By replenishment periods- a broad improving trend in Africa performance ratings
WB Long term trends-Africa lower by 12% compared to other regions (IEG dataset, project exit )
IFAD- West and Central Africa-weakest region, Africa more than 10% lower than other IFAD regions (ARRI, 2015, )
Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) Africa Region on average lowest of GEF regions on Government Effectiveness, Regulatory Quality, & Rule of Law
WB IEG: quality at entry issues, ex- poor assessment of country conditions and capacity (WB Results and Performance 2014)
IFAD IEO (ARRI 2014): noted weaker policy and institutional context, large proportion of fragile and conflict states
By replenishment periods- overall improving trend in Africa performance ratings
Analysis of APR dataset shows that outcome ratings linked with government effectiveness
Cut out: , from ARRI: important contributing factor is relatively weaker policy and institutional context, large proportion of fragile, conflict affected states
World Bank Africa Regional update: a steady decline in quality at entry. As in previous years, this finding was consistent in Implementation Completion Report Reviews (ICRRs) and in PPARs. Projects failed due to overambitiousness and complexity; a poor assessment of country conditions and capacity (not recognized or well addressed in project design); and a deficient results framework. P.53 Results and Performance of WB Group 2014
Development Outcomes of World Bank Projects: Real or Illusory Improvements?, Inder Sud, Jane Olmstead-Rumsey, Institute for Global and International Studies, 2012
Selectivity and Performance, IDA’s Country Assessment and Development Effectiveness
Annual Report on Results and Impact of IFAD Operations Evaluated in 2014, ARRI 2015

11. Analysis of Tracking Tools Findings
GEF-6 Tracking Tools leaner, better aligned with focal area results framework indicators
Number of data fields dropped by 33 percent (from 1504 to 1009).
Based on activities common to GEF-5 & GEF-6, data fields reduced by 44%
Variation by focal area in reduction
Biodiversity Tracking Tools
The tools are useful in providing quality inputs and contribute to the global knowledgebase
Have been streamlined
But the number of data fields remains high

12. Analysis of Tracking Tools Findings
Tracking tools for multi-focal areas continue to present a challenge.
Some burden has reduced through streamlining focal area tracking tools
However, Agencies still complete tracking tools for each focal area in multi-focal projects
Integrated Approach Pilot (IAP projects) use customized tracking tools. Aggregation of data from IAPs may be a challenge.
Gaps in compliance, retrieval, storage, and management of tracking tools exist.

13. Management Action Record
GEF IEO Management Action Record (MAR) tracks level of adoption of GEF Council decisions
Provides council a record of its decisions, proposed actions and status of actions related to evaluations
Increases accountability of GEF Management regarding Council decisions on M&E
MARs are available at:
Work on

14. MAR 2015 11 decisions tracked in MAR2015
4 Decisions deferred for later assessment
7 Decisions rated, of which 3 are graduated (1 rated ‘High’, 2 rated ‘Substantial’) and 4 will continue to be tracked
Graduated Decisions of MAR2015
High: decision to revitalize SGP Steering committee
Substantial: Robust tracking and reporting in South China Sea; GHG emission methodology.
Council Decisions with level of adoption rated High
To revitalize the global SGP Steering Committee, graduated
Council Decisions with level of adoption rated Substantial
To adopt a more robust tracking and reporting approach to ensure Agency accountability for collaboration and cooperation in the South China Sea and the East Asian Seas- graduated
To continue work on the improvement of the methodology for the GHG emission accounting in GEF projects, in collaboration with the STAP and relevant entities- graduated
To explore and pursue opportunities for use of SGP country programs as service providers to implement community-level activities for FSPs and MSPs
To implement recommendations from the Joint Impact Evaluation of GEF Support to Protected Areas and Surrounding Landscapes
Council Decisions with level of adoption rated Medium
To reduce the burden of reporting requirements of multi-focal area projects to a level comparable to that of single focal area projects
To continue upgrading the SGP Country Program, building on strengths and addressing weaknesses, and to revisit the criteria for selection of countries for upgradation.

15. MAR Cumulative Ratings at Exit
70% of the tracked Council Decisions were assessed to have been adopted at substantial or high level at exit.

16. Recommendation
The GEF needs to reassess its approach to tracking tools for GEF-7. It should also assess the burden and utility of its biodiversity tracking tools and of other alternatives.