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.