LDCF Program Evaluation 2016 W Annexes

20th LDCF/SCCF Council Meeting
June 09, 2016

Washington, D.C.
GEF/LDCF.SCCF.20/ME/02
May 11, 2016
Agenda Item 06
PROGRAM EVALUATION OF THE LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES FUND

(Prepared by the Independent Evaluation Office of the GEF)
Recommended Council Decision

The Council, having reviewed document GEF/LDCF.SCCF.20/ME/02, Program Evaluation of the Least
Developed Countries Fund and GEF/LDCF.SCCF.20/ME/03, Management Response to the Program
Evaluation of the Least Developed Countries Fund, takes note of the conclusions of the evaluation
and endorses the recommendations.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figures and Tables..........................................................................................................................iv
Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................vi
Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... ix
I.
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1
II.
Background of the LDCF......................................................................................................... 1
III.
Approach and Methodology .................................................................................................. 6
Theory of Change and Methods .................................................................................................. 6

Meta-Evaluation Review ........................................................................................................... 10
Limitations ................................................................................................................................. 15
IV.
Analysis of the LDCF Portfolio .............................................................................................. 15
Portfolio Composition and Evolution ........................................................................................ 15

V.
Relevance of LDCF Support .................................................................................................. 21

Relevance in Relation to COP Guidance and Decisions of the UNFCCC.................................... 22
Relevance to Countries Environmental and Sustainable Development Agendas ................... 25
VI.
Effectiveness and Efficiency of the LDCF ............................................................................. 29
Effectiveness in Achieving Objectives ....................................................................................... 29

Efficiency of the Fund ................................................................................................................ 33
VII. Emerging Results and their Sustainability ........................................................................... 36
Catalytic Effects of the LDCF ..................................................................................................... 37
LDCF Support in Relation to Other GEF Focal Areas ................................................................. 42
Gender Equality and Womens Empowerment Objectives ...................................................... 45
The Sustainability of Emerging Results ..................................................................................... 48
VII. Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................... 50
Conclusions................................................................................................................................ 50
Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 52
iii
FIGURES
AND TABLES
Figure 1: Distribution of LDCF Financing and Projects by GEF Agency ........................................... 5

Figure 2: Theory of Change of the LDCF ......................................................................................... 7
Figure 3: Distribution of LDCF Projects by GEF Replenishment Phase ......................................... 17
Figure 4: Distribution of LDCF Financing and Co-financing by GEF Agency.................................. 18
Figure 5: Co-Finance Share as Percentage of Project Budget by GEF Agency .............................. 18
Figure 6: Number of LDCF Projects by Region .............................................................................. 19
Figure 7: LDCF Projects' grant value by region (1,000 $) .............................................................. 19
Figure 8: Alignment of NAPA Country Reports (EAs) with GEF Adaptation Strategic Pillars ....... 23
Figure 9: Alignment of NAPA Implementation Projects with GEF Adaptation Strategic Pillars ... 23
Figure 10: Alignment of NAPA Implementation Projects with GEF Adaptation Strategic
Objectives...................................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 11: Alignment of NAPA Country Reports (EAs) with GEF Adaptation Strategic Objectives
....................................................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 12: NAPA Implementation Projects Quality at Entry Review ........................................... 32
Figure 13: LDCF Cumulative Pledges Outstanding and Contributions Finalized .......................... 35
Figure 14: Catalytic Effects of NAPA Implementation Projects .................................................... 40
Figure 15: Catalytic Effects of NAPA Implementation Projects, as Identified by Stakeholders ... 41
Figure 16: Potential Contribution of NAPA Implementation Projects to Global Environmental
Benefits (GEBs) .............................................................................................................................. 44
Table 1: Number of LDCF Projects by Project Status ...................................................................... 9
Table 2: Inclusion of NAPA Implementation Projects according to Project Status ........................ 9
Table 3: Number of and Budgetary Allocation for LDCF Projects by Project Type....................... 16
Table 4: LDCF Projects' Grant Value by GEF Replenishment Phase (1,000 $) .............................. 16
Table 5: LDCF Projects' Grant Value by Project Status (1,000 $) .................................................. 21
Table 6: Other Focal Areas to which NAPA Country Reports (EAs) Potentially Contribute ......... 24
Table 7: Other Focal Areas to which NAPA Implementation Projects Potentially Contribute ..... 24
Table 8: NAPA Country Reports' Alignment with Countries' Environmental and Sustainable
Development Agendas .................................................................................................................. 26
Table 9: Priority Areas Identified in NAPA Country Reports (EAs) ............................................... 26
Table 10: Priority Areas Addressed by NAPA Implementation Projects ...................................... 27
Table 11: NAPA Implementation Projects' Alignment with NAPA Country Reports Priorities ... 28
Table 12: Probability of NAPA Implementation Projects Delivering Tangible Adaptation Benefits
....................................................................................................................................................... 33
Table 13: Identification of Delays in NAPA Implementation Projects .......................................... 34
iv
Table 14: Identification of Delays in NAPA Implementation Projects .......................................... 34

Table 15: Overview of Completed LDCF Implementation Projects (MSP/FSP) ............................ 38
Table 16: Inclusion of a Gender Mainstreaming Strategy or Plan by GEF Replenishment Phase 46
Table 17: Inclusion of a Gender Responsive Results Framework, Including Gender
Disaggregated Indicators, by GEF Replenishment Phase ............................................................. 46
Table 18: Overall Assessment of NAPA Implementation Projects' Inclusion of the Gender
Component, by GEF Replenishment Phase1 ................................................................................. 48
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.
The Least Developed Countries Fund/Special Climate Change Fund (LDCF/SCCF) Council
at its 18th meeting in June 2015 approved the Four-Year Work Program of the Independent
Evaluation Office (IEO) of the GEF, which includes a program evaluation of the Least Developed
Countries Fund (LDCF) during fiscal year 2016. The evaluation focuses on performance and
progress towards LDCF objectives and emerging results. The overall purpose of the evaluation is
to provide the LDCF/SCCF Council with evaluative evidence of the Funds relevance and
emerging results.
2.
The LDCF was established in response to guidance received from the Seventh
Conference of Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) meeting in Marrakech in 2001, as one of its climate change adaptation (CCA)
financing mechanisms. The LDCF is mandated by the Parties to the UNFCCC to, among others,
provide support to the least developed countries (LDCs) climate change adaptation efforts,
including the preparation of National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs), the
implementation of NAPA priority projects in LDCs, as well as support for the preparation of the
National Adaptation Plan (NAP) process in eligible developing countries.
3.
The GEF acts as an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the UNFCCC and was
entrusted with the (financial) operation of the LDCF. The LDCF is separate to the GEF Trust Fund
and the LDCF and SCCF have their own council. However, the governance structure, operational
procedures and policies that apply to the GEF Trust Fund are also applied to the LDCF and SCCF,
unless the LDCF/SCCF Council decides that it is necessary to modify the procedures in response
to COP guidance or to facilitate the operations of the LDCF and SCCF so as to achieve
successfully the objectives of the Funds. The 18 GEF Agencies have direct access to LDCF for the
preparation and implementation of activities financed by the Fund. As of September 22, 2015,
eight GEF Agencies were involved in LDCF operations (ADB, AfDB, FAO, IFAD, UNDP, UNEP,
UNIDO and World Bank), with UNDP holding the largest share of the portfolio at 49 percent of
total funds approved. The UNDP has assisted a large number of countries in preparing their
NAPA country reports and subsequent NAPA implementation projects.
4.
A meta-evaluation review of relevant evaluations was used as foundation to depart
from, taking into account that each evaluation has its specific objectives and thus perspectives,
and respecting that previous findings provide a snapshot of the LDCF and its operational
landscape at specific moments in time. As follow-up to the 2009 LDCF joint evaluation this
evaluation aims to complement the existing evidence base regarding the Funds performance.
As part of this evaluations methodology, a theory of change (TOC) has been developed for the
Fund, combining GEFs strategic objectives for adaptation with the objectives, outcomes and
overarching goal as identified in the results framework of the GEF adaptation program. The TOC
informed the development of evaluative questions, further guided the development of related
methods protocols, and was used to analyze the broader progress to impact through the
aggregation of available evidence on broader scale and longer term results. The overarching
vi
goal and strategic objectives, visible in the TOC and an integral part of the GEF programming
strategy on adaptation, translate into three main evaluation questions and a number of subquestions grouped by the core evaluation criteria. The evaluation team assessed the
performance and progress of the LDCF using aggregated data for these questions:
Relevance - How relevant is LDCF support in light of UNFCCC COP guidance and
decisions, the GEF adaptation programming strategy, and countries broader
developmental policies, plans and programs?
Effectiveness and Efficiency - How effective and efficient is the LDCF in reaching its
objectives, based on emerging results?
Results and Sustainability - What are the emerging results and factors that affect the
sustainability and resilience of these results?
5.
A portfolio analysis protocol, including a quality-at-entry review, was developed using a
survey tool to assess the projects in a systematic manner to ensure that key project-level
questions were addressed coherently. The team applied the portfolio analysis protocol to 280
projects at various stages of implementation and the quality-at-entry review protocol to 116
national projects (MSP/FSP) that were CEO endorsed/approved or under implementation as of
October 2015. Given that the NAPA implementation projects are at different stages of
implementation, the status of the respective projects determines the way and extent in which
they were included in the LDCF program evaluation according to the core evaluation criteria.
6.
In addition to the document and project reviews, the team conducted four country field
visits (to Cambodia, Haiti, Lao PDR and Senegal) and carried out interviews with key
stakeholders to cross-check and validate the data collected. Finally, the evaluation team
conducted an analysis of, and triangulated, data collected to determine trends, formulate main
findings, conclusions, lessons and recommendations. The evaluation matrix, summarizing the
key questions, indicators or basic data, sources of information and methodology was used to
guide the analysis and triangulation.
7.
In its evaluation of the LDCF, the Independent Evaluation Office of the GEF reached the
following 8 conclusions:
Conclusion 1: LDCF supported activities, for the most part, have been highly relevant to COP
guidance, and countries development priorities. There is a generally high degree of coherence
between the scope of LDCF funded activities and both the guidance and priorities of the
UNFCCC and the GEF, and the development priorities of countries receiving LDCF support.
Conclusion 2: LDCF supported interventions show clear potential in reaching the GEFs three
adaptation strategic objectives. Eighty-eight percent of NAPA country reports (EAs), and 90
percent of implementation projects (MSP/FSP) were from a large to an extremely large extent
aligned with the GEF adaptation strategic objectives. The quality at entry review showed that
98 percent of NAPA implementation projects had a high to very high probability of delivering
vii
tangible adaptation benefits. Also the majority of stakeholders interviewed indicated it was
very likely that the NAPA implementation projects they were familiar with, or involved in,
would reach the GEFs strategic adaptation objectives.
Conclusion 3: Contributions of LDCF supported interventions to focal areas other than climate
change are potentially significant. It is not within the Funds mandate to explicitly target focal
areas beyond climate change, but given the primary priority areas for LDCF support
agriculture, water resource management and fragile ecosystems there is clear potential for
beneficial synergies with the biodiversity and land degradation focal areas in particular. The
Funds support also has the potential to contribute to some extent to GEFs global
environmental benefits, most notably on maintaining globally significant biodiversity and
sustainable land management in production systems.
Conclusion 4: The efficiency of the LDCF has been negatively impacted by the unpredictability
of available resources. Despite employing measures to expedite the project cycle the LDCFs
efficiency has experienced negative effects from the unpredictable nature of available
resources. There is no formal resource mobilization process and the Fund has to rely on
voluntary contributions. Unpredictable funding creates uncertainty for GEF Agencies and least
developed countries reliant on LDCF support for the implementation of their primary climate
change adaptation priorities. It also negatively influences stakeholders perception of the
Funds transparency and overall impacts LDCFs efficiency.
Conclusion 5: LDCF support to NAPA implementation projects has resulted in catalytic effects
in completed projects, though extensive replication and upscaling generally demands further
financing beyond the projects timeframe. Completed NAPA implementation projects
developed or introduced new technologies and/or approaches, which were successfully
demonstrated and disseminated, and resulted in activities, demonstrations, and/or techniques
being repeated within and outside of these projects. Additional catalytic effects, as identified by
project stakeholders, were (1) in the generation of significant social, economic, cultural and
human well-being co-benefits as a result of NAPA project implementation, (2) the projects
having impacts on multiple sectors and at different levels of society, and (3) the projects
resulting in the development of foundations for larger scale projects through analytic work,
assessments and capacity building. Only 15 percent of completed projects performed well on
upscaling. For the majority of projects which received low performance ratings for scaling up,
additional financing will be required to ensure scaling up. The technical and institutional
capacity building and information sharing activities had good buy-in from national and locallevel officials, but projects highlight further financing beyond the projects timeframe as the
primary requirement for scaling up.
Conclusion 6: There is a clear intent to mainstream adaptation into countries environmental
and sustainable development policies, plans and associated processes. The portfolio analysis
found that almost three quarters of NAPA country reports clearly detailed the ways in which
NAPA priorities would be linked with existing national policies, plans and strategies.
viii
Conclusion 7: The gender performance of the LDCF portfolio has improved considerably in
response to enhanced requirements from the GEF, though there seems to be confusion as to
what it means to be gender mainstreamed. Almost 50 percent of projects under GEF-4 lacked
a gender mainstreaming strategy or plan, which went down to 8.7 percent under GEF-6. Over
90 percent of NAPA implementation projects financed under GEF-6 address gender concerns to
some degree. However, this evaluation rated only 17.4 percent of these projects as gender
mainstreamed; more projects need to move from the gender aware and gender sensitive
categories to the gender mainstreamed rating. The Gender Equality Action Plan clearly
explains what it means for a project to be gender mainstreamed. Some other council
documents, more specifically the AMR, show a different interpretation regarding gender
mainstreaming.
Conclusion 8: There are significant discrepancies in project data from the GEF Secretariats
Project Management Information System (PMIS). A quality assessment of PMIS information
was not a specific objective of this evaluation, but project data harvesting from PMIS revealed
58 broken links to project documentation for 46 projects. Moreover, the cross-checking of the
available project data with GEF agencies revealed further discrepancies in the data coming from
the Project Management Information System.
Recommendations
8.
In its evaluation of the LDCF, the Independent Evaluation Office of the GEF reached the
following 3 recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The GEF Secretariat should explore and develop mechanisms that ensure
the predictable, adequate and sustainable financing of the Fund.
Recommendation 2: The GEF Secretariat should make efforts to improve consistency
regarding their understanding and application of the GEF gender mainstreaming policy and
the Gender Equality Action Plan (GEAP) to the LDCF.
Recommendation 3: The GEF Secretariat should ensure that the data in the Project
Management Information System is up to date and accurate
.
ix
I.
INTRODUCTION
1.
The Least Developed Countries Fund/Special Climate Change Fund (LDCF/SCCF) Council
at its 18th meeting in June 2015 approved the Four-Year Work Program of the Independent
Evaluation Office (IEO) of the GEF, 1 which includes a program evaluation of the Least Developed
Countries Fund (LDCF) during fiscal year 2016. The evaluation focuses on performance and
progress towards LDCF objectives and emerging results. The overall purpose of the evaluation is
to provide the LDCF/SCCF Council with evaluative evidence of the Funds relevance and
emerging results.
II.
BACKGROUND OF THE LDCF
2.
financing mechanisms.2 The LDCF is mandated by the Parties to the UNFCCC to, among others,
provide support to the least developed countries (LDCs) climate change adaptation efforts,
including the preparation of National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs), the
implementation of NAPA priority projects in LDCs, as well as support for the preparation of the
National Adaptation Plan (NAP) process in eligible developing countries. 3 An overview of key
terms used, as defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 4 is provided
in Box 1. A summary of UNFCCC COP guidance and decisions towards the LDCF is provided in
Box 2.
3.
The GEF acts as an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the UNFCCC and was
entrusted with the (financial) operation of the LDCF. The LDCF is separate to the GEF Trust Fund
and the LDCF and SCCF have their own council. However, the governance structure, operational
procedures and policies that apply to the GEF Trust Fund are also applied to the LDCF and SCCF,
unless the LDCF/SCCF Council decides that it is necessary to modify the procedures in response
to COP guidance or to facilitate the operations of the LDCF and SCCF so as to achieve
successfully the objectives of the Funds.
IEO, Four-Year Work Program and Budget for the Independent Evaluation Office of the GEF under the LDCF and
SCCF, May 08 2015. Council Document GEF/LDCF.SCCF.18/ME/01/Rev.01.
2
UNFCCC, Decision 7/CP.7 Funding under the Convention, Document UNFCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, Decision 7/CP.7.
3
UNFCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, Decision 2/CP.7, Decision 5/CP.7, and Decision 7/CP.7; UNFCCC/CP/2002/7/Add.1,
Decision 8/CP.8; UNFCCC/CP/2003/6/Add.1, Decision 4/CP.9, and Decision 6/CP.9; UNFCCC/CP/2005/5/Add.1,
Decision 3/CP.11; UNFCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1, Decision 1/CP.16, paragraphs 15-16; UNFCCC/CP/2012/8/Add.2,
Decision 12/CP.18, paragraphs 1 and 4.
4
IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, IPCC Working Group II Contribution to AR5,
Glossary, October 2014.
Box 1: IPCC Definitions of Key Terms

Adaptation
The process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects.
In human systems, adaptation seeks to moderate or avoid harm or exploit beneficial
opportunities. In some natural systems, human intervention may facilitate adjustment to
expected climate and its effects.
Adaptation needs
The circumstances requiring action to ensure safety of populations and
security of assets in response to climate impacts.
Adaptive capacity
The ability of systems, institutions, humans, and other organisms to
adjust to potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to respond to
consequences
Capacity building
In the context of climate change, the process of developing the
technical skills and institutional capability in developing countries and economies in
transition to enable them to address effectively the causes and results of climate change.
Climate change
Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can
be identified by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists
for an extended period, typically decades or longer. The UNFCCC, in its Article 1, defines
climate change as: a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human
activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to
natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
Resilience
The capacity of social, economic, and environmental systems to cope
with a hazardous event, trend or disturbance, responding or reorganizing in ways that
maintain their essential function, identity, and structure, while also maintaining the capacity
for adaptation, learning, and transformation.
Sensitivity
The degree to which a system or species is affected, either adversely or
beneficially, by climate variability or change. The effect may be direct (e.g., a change in crop
yield in response to a change in the mean, range, or variability of temperature) or indirect
(e.g., damages caused by an increase in the frequency of coastal flooding due to sea level
rise).
Vulnerability
The propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected. Vulnerability
encompasses a variety of concepts and elements including sensitivity or susceptibility to
harm and lack of capacity to cope and adapt. Vulnerabilities are considered key if they have
the potential to combine with hazardous events or trends to result in key risks. Vulnerabilities
that have little influence on climate-related risk, for instance, due to lack of exposure to
hazards, would not be considered key.
Box 2: Recap of UNFCCC COP Guidance and Decisions towards the LDCF
The LDCF was established in 2001 as adaptation funding mechanism. Its mandate, objectives
and priorities in supporting LDCs has developed over time. A concise overview, of relevance
to this evaluation, is provided below:
FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, Decision 2/CP.7, Annex B, par. 9, and Annex D, par.22:

Capacity building in developing countries as part of the LDC (non-Annex 1) work
program, in support of country-driven capacity-building activities with a focus on
especially those countries particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate
change.
FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, Decision 5/CP.7 and Decision 7/CP.7, par.6: Support the

work program for the LDCs, including the preparation of the NAPAs.
FCCC/CP/2003/6/Add.1, Decision 4/CP.9, par.1a: Support preparation of National

Communications to the Convention.5
FCCC/CP/2003/6/Add.1, Decision 6/CP.9, pars. 2 and 3: Support the implementation

of NAPAs (the support of NAPA implementation projects) as soon as possible after the
NAPA completion.
FCCC/CP/2003/6/Add.1, Decision 6/CP.9, par. 3 and FCCC/CP/2005/5/Add.1, Decision

3/CP.11, par.1a: NAPAs should be country-driven, in line with national priorities,
which ensures cost-effectiveness and complementarity with other funding sources.
There should be a focus on urgency and immediacy of adapting to the adverse effects
of climate change with a prioritization of activities.
FCCC/CP/2005/5/Add.1, Decision 3/CP.11, par. 1 b-c: (b) Supporting the

implementation of activities identified in NAPAs, in order to promote the integration
of adaptation measures in national development and poverty reduction strategies,
plans or policies, with a view to increasing resilience to the adverse effects of climate
change, and (c) Supporting a learning-by-doing approach.
FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1, Decision 1/CP.16, par. 15: Establish a process to formulate

and implement national adaptation plans (NAPs) as a means of identifying mediumand long-term adaptation needs and developing and implementing strategies and
programs to address those needs.
FCCC/CP/2012/8/Add.2, Decision 12/CP.18, par. 1: To provide funding from the Least

Developed Countries Fund for activities that enable the preparation of the NAP
process.
UNFCCC overview Non-Annex I national communications.
4.
There are currently 18 GEF Agencies related to the LDCF. They comprise the original
three GEF implementing agencies (IAs) (UNDP, UNEP and World Bank) plus the seven former
executing agencies Asian Development Bank (ADB), the African Development Bank (AfDB),
the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the Inter-American
Development Bank (IDB), the Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN (FAO), the
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), and the United Nations Industrial
Development Organization (UNIDO). These ten agencies are called GEF Agencies. Eight newly
accredited agencies Conservation International (CI), Development Bank of Latin America
(CAF), Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA), the Foreign Economic Cooperation Office,
Ministry of Environmental Protection of China (FECO), Fundo Brasileiro para a Biodiversidade
(FUNBIO), the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN),
West African Development Bank (BOAD), and the United States World Wildlife Fund (WWF-US)
are called GEF Project Agencies, and they have no corporate responsibilities. Throughout this
report, when GEF Agencies are discussed it is referring to both GEF Agencies and GEF Project
Agencies as described above.
5.
These 18 GEF Agencies have direct access to LDCF for the preparation and
implementation of activities financed by the Fund. As of September 22, 2015, eight GEF
Agencies were involved in LDCF operations (ADB, AfDB, FAO, IFAD, UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO and
World Bank), with UNDP holding the largest share of the portfolio at 48.7 percent of total funds
approved and 55.2 percent in number of projects (Figure 1, N=223). 6 The UNDP has assisted a
large number of countries in preparing their NAPA country reports (EAs) and subsequent NAPA
implementation projects (MSP/FSP).
6.
NAPAs provide a process for LDCs to identify priority activities that respond to their
urgent and immediate needs to adapt to climate change those for which further delay would
increase vulnerability and/or costs at a later stage. The main content of NAPAs is a countrydriven list of ranked priority adaptation activities and projects, designed to facilitate the
development of proposals for implementation of the NAPA. The focus is on short-term outputs
and potential long-term outcomes. As of September 22, 2015, 51 least developed countries
(LDCs) had accessed $12.20 million in support of the preparation of their NAPA. An overview of
completed NAPA country reports (EAs) can be found in Annex 1.7 Of the 50 countries that had
completed their NAPAs, 49 had accessed a total of $905.63 million for 161 projects to address
their urgent and immediate adaptation needs. 8
7.
NAPs provide a process for LDCs to formulate and implement activities that focus on
medium- and long-term adaptation needs, building on the experience of the LDCs in addressing
GEF, Progress Report on the Least Developed Countries Fund and the Special Climate Change Fund Par.14,
September 25 2015, Council Document GEF/LDCF.SCCF.19/03.
7
UNFCCC, National Adaptation Programmes of Action - Index of NAPA Projects by Country, May 2013.
8
GEF, Progress Report on the Least Developed Countries Fund and the Special Climate Change Fund - Executive
Summary, Par.3, September 25 2015. Council Document GEF/LDCF.SCCF.19/03.
urgent and immediate adaptation needs through the NAPAs. As of September 22, 2015, two
global projects (GEF IDs 5320 and 5868) with LDCF resources amounting to $9.14 million had
been approved to support the preparation of the NAP process in LDCs. 9
8.
One global project (GEF ID 5615) with $4.54 million in LDCF resources further focuses on
the implementation of elements of the LDC work program other than NAPAs, namely the
effective participation in climate change negotiations, and access to and use of climate
information. 10
9.
Unlike the GEF Trust Fund, which is replenished every four years, the LDCF receives
voluntary contributions with no regular replenishment schedule. This leads to a high level of
financing uncertainty. There is no established resource mobilization process, but the GEF
adaptation strategy on climate change adaptation for the LDCF/SCCF introduces two illustrative
financing scenarios for LDCF to encourage contributions. Currently there is a ceiling of $30
million per LDC, based on the principle of equitable access.
Figure 1: Distribution of LDCF Financing and Projects by GEF Agency
48.7%
UNDP
55.2%
12.5%
UNEP
17.5%
10.3%
FAO
8.5%
11.1%
World Bank
7.2%
10.1%
AfDB
6.3%
5.0%
IFAD
ADB
UNIDO
3.6%
% of total LDCF project funding
1.9%
% of total LDCF project portfolio
0.9%
0.5%
0.9%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Note: Only Council approved, CEO endorsed/approved, under implementation and completed projects are taken into account.
Ibid. Annex 1.
Ibid. Par.9 / Annex 1.
10
III.
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
10.
The IEO prepared an approach paper outlining the objectives and methods to be used in
the program evaluation of the LDCF. This paper was circulated to key stakeholders and
published on the IEO website for comments and inputs. The approach paper and an audit trail
of comments received and actions taken are available on the IEO website. The Annexes to this
report are also made available on the IEO website. 11
11.
The main objective of this evaluation of the LDCF, as follow-up to the 2009 LDCF joint
evaluation (see the meta-evaluation review below), is to provide evaluative evidence on the
progress towards LDCF objectives, major achievements and lessons learned since the Funds
establishment in response to guidance from the Seventh Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC
meeting in 2001 and subsequent guidance provided to the Fund as summarized in Box 2.
Theory of Change and Methods
12.
In light of this evaluation, a theory of change (TOC) has been developed for the Fund
(Figure 2), combining GEFs strategic objectives for adaptation (Box 3) 12 and objectives,
outcomes and overarching goal as identified in the results framework of the GEF adaptation
program (Annex 2). The GEF Areas of Contribution are identified in Technical Paper 7 of the GEF
Focal Area Strategies (FAS) evaluation, titled Climate Change Adaptation under LDCF and
SCCF. 13 The TOC informed the development of evaluative questions, further guided the
development of related methods protocols, and was used to analyze the broader progress to
impact through the aggregation of available evidence on broader scale and longer term results.
13.
The overarching goal and strategic objectives, visible in the TOC and an integral part of
the GEF programming strategy on adaptation, translate into three main evaluation questions
and a number of sub-questions grouped by the core evaluation criteria (Annex 3). The team
assessed the performance and progress of the LDCF using aggregated data for these questions:
Relevance - How relevant is LDCF support in light of UNFCCC COP guidance and
decisions, the GEF adaptation programming strategy, and countries broader
developmental policies, plans and programs?
Effectiveness and Efficiency - How effective and efficient is the LDCF in reaching its
objectives, based on emerging results?
Results and Sustainability - What are the emerging results and factors that affect the
sustainability and resilience of these results?
11
IEO, Program Evaluation Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) 2016 Approach Paper, Audit Trail and
Annexes.
12
GEF, GEF Programming Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change for the Least Developed Countries Fund and
the Special Climate Change Fund, May 05, 2014. Council Document GEF/LDCF.SCCF.16/03/Rev.01.
13
IEO, Evaluation of the GEF Focal Area Strategies Technical Paper 7: Climate Change Adaptation under LDCF and
SCCF, November 2012.
Figure 2: Theory of Change of the LDCF
Box 3: GEF Strategic Objectives and Pillars

The GEF Programming Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change for the LDCF and SCCF has
three strategic objectives:
Reduce the vulnerability of people, livelihoods, physical assets and natural systems to
the adverse effects of climate change;
Strengthen institutional and technical capacities for effective climate change

adaptation; and
Integrate climate change adaptation into relevant policies, plans and associated
processes.
The future direction charted by this Strategy is captured in two strategic pillars that are
intended to guide programming under the LDCF and the SCCF towards their goal and
objectives, namely:
Integrating climate change adaptation into relevant policies, plans, programs and
decision-making processes in a continuous, progressive and iterative manner as a
means to identify and address short-, medium- and long-term adaptation needs; and
Expanding synergies with other GEF focal areas.
These objectives and pillars are used to evaluate the Funds performance against. The results
framework of the GEF adaptation program 14 is provided in Annex 2.
14.
At the evaluations onset the evaluation team conducted a meta-evaluation review of
recent evaluations conducted by the IEO, evaluation offices of GEF Agencies and others that
have reviewed the LDCF, the NAPA process and/or individual NAPA implementation projects.
The team also reviewed GEF specific documents on the LDCF and related interventions, as well
as additional literature beyond GEF and LDCF/SCCF Council and project documents, and GEF
Secretariats policies, processes and related documents. The meta-evaluation review is further
discussed in the subsequent paragraph.
15.
A portfolio analysis protocol, including a quality-at-entry review, (Annex 4) was
developed using a survey tool to assess the projects in a systematic manner to ensure that key
project-level questions were addressed coherently. The team applied the portfolio analysis
protocol to 280 projects at various stages of implementation and the quality-at-entry review
protocol to 116 national projects (medium size projects and full size projects - MSP/FSP) that
were CEO endorsed/approved or under implementation as of October 2015. Given that the
14
GEF, Updated Results-Based Management Framework for Adaptation to Climate Change under the Least
Developed Countries Fund and the Special Climate Change Fund, October 2014. Council document
GEF/LDCF.SCCF.17/05/Rev.01.
NAPA implementation projects are at different stages of implementation (Table 1), the status of
the respective projects determines the way and extent in which they will be included in the
LDCF program evaluation according to the core evaluation criteria (Table 2).
Table 1: Number of LDCF Projects by Project Status
NAPA country
reports (EAs)
Project status
Completed
NAPA implementation projects

MSP
50
Under implementation
CEO endorsed/approved
MSP/FSP
total
FSP
6
13
63
97
101
101
18
18
19
39
40
40
25
26
26
16
16
16
11
12
12
Council approved
PPG approved
PM recommended
Pending
Cancelled or dropped
Grand total
Total:
51
13
216
229
280
Total, excl. cancelled or dropped:
51
12
205
217
268
Total, from Council approved to

completed:
51
11
161
172
223
Cut-off date for portfolio analysis data was 31 October 2015. Project status might have changed since.
Table 2: Inclusion of NAPA Implementation Projects according to Project Status

Core criteria
Relevance
Effectiveness
Efficiency
Results and
Sustainability
Completed
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Likelihood
Likelihood
N/A
Expected
N/A
N/A
N/A
Status
Approved, but not under

implementation
16.
The evaluation team developed a database of all LDCF projects including information on
project status, financing and co-financing, GEF agency, executing agency or institutions,
countries, main objectives and key partners. The majority of the information was extracted
from the GEF PMIS and verified by GEF agencies. The LDCF project database as well as
9
information from the portfolio analysis protocol allowed for aggregation at the portfolio level
enabling evaluation of the LDCF as a whole.
17.
All available project documentation, including project preparation grant (PPG) requests,
project identification forms (PIFs), requests for CEO endorsement/approval, project documents
(PDs), LDCF/SCCF adaptation monitoring and assessment tools (AMATs) and tracking tools for
other focal areas, project implementation reports (PIRs), mid-term reviews (MTRs), terminal
evaluations (TEs), and terminal evaluations reviews (TERs), was reviewed during the evaluation
process. The evaluations findings on sustainability are primarily based on data for 11 projects
that have been completed and submitted a TE and TER.
18.
In addition to the document and project reviews, the team conducted four country field
visits (to Cambodia, Haiti, Lao PDR and Senegal) and carried out interviews with key
stakeholders to cross-check and validate the data collected. These countries were selected in
an attempt to cover all LDC regions and to visit countries with larger LDCF portfolios. The field
visits are a critical component of this evaluation as they provide in-depth, field-verified inputs
to the findings and recommendations.
19.
Interviews were carried out with senior management and staff of the GEF Secretariat,
GEF Agencies, the UNFCCC Secretariat, STAP, current and former Council members, donors to
the LDCF, government officials, project implementers, CSOs, beneficiaries and other country
level stakeholders. A full list of people consulted is presented in Annex 5.
20.
Finally, the evaluation team conducted an analysis of, and triangulated, data collected
to determine trends, formulate main findings, conclusions, lessons and recommendations. The
evaluation matrix (Annex 3), summarizing the key questions, indicators or basic data, sources of
information and methodology was used to guide the analysis and triangulation.
21.
The evaluation was led by Senior Evaluation Officer, Ms. Anna Viggh, as task manager,
with oversight from the Chief Evaluation Officer, Ms. Geeta Battra, and the Director of the IEO,
Mr. Juha Uitto. The evaluation team further consisted of an Evaluation Officer, Mr. Dennis
Bours, a Senior Consultant, Mr. Howard Stewart, and three Junior Consultants, Ms. Hayley
Gillooly, Ms. Katya Verkhovsky and Mr. Matt McFall. The consultants were hired to undertake
specific tasks such as conducting a country field visit, reviewing all project documentation and a
portfolio and quality-at-entry analysis for all projects that make up the LDCF portfolio.
Meta-Evaluation Review
22.
A 2008 terminal evaluation of UNEP GEF projects examined impacts from the NAPA
Enabling Activities (EAs) and assessed project performance and implementation. 15 The
evaluation found that all NAPA country reports (EAs) surveyed were relevant to national
15
UNEP, Terminal Evaluation of the UNEP GEF Projects Enabling Activities for the Preparation of a National
Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA), April 2008. UNEP Evaluation and Oversight Unit.
10
sustainable development priorities, though no countries identified specific means by which the
NAPA priorities could be integrated into country planning frameworks. All NAPA country
reports were consistent with their intended aim of communicating urgent and immediate
adaptation needs. However, the evaluation felt that focusing on immediate needs represented
a significant missed opportunity to achieve catalytic mainstreaming impacts by addressing longterm adaptation barriers. Evidence of internal capacity building was stronger where the NAPA
was considered part of a continuum of enabling activities, including National Communications.
In terms of efficiency, the evaluation found that lengthy project approval processes at times
resulted in delays and lost momentum for projects. It recommended a more flexible and
accelerated approval process.
23.
The UNDP Evaluation Office carried out an independent evaluation of UNDPs work with
the LDCF/SCCF, published in 2009. 16 The evaluation found that there was justifiable
dissatisfaction among countries concerning the lengthy time periods and complex procedures
required to move from the NAPAs to concrete projects. Some actors found the approval
process adequate, but did not feel sufficiently informed about how decisions were made, by
whom, and on what criteria. There were also differing expectations amongst the different
actors. Some countries thought that as soon as the NAPA was completed, resources for followup activities would be made available. Meanwhile, the UNDP often felt the NAPAs looked more
like wish lists, and that realistic project identification still needed to be completed. The
evaluation noted that internal capacity gaps and lack of necessary support at various levels incountry impeded catalytic progress. The reports conclusions were not very targeted, and it was
not always clear whether individual recommendations were aimed at the LDCF or SCCF.
24.
A joint evaluation of the LDCF was conducted in 2009 with the Evaluation Department of
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark (DANIDA) to analyze and document the results and
lessons learned from the LDCFs financing and promotion of climate change adaptation. 17 18 At
the time of the evaluation the Fund was still in its first phase and only covered the development
of NAPAs. Since then the LDCF has proceeded to funding the implementation of adaptation
activities, as well as supporting the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) process. The evaluation
included 31 recommendations; eight were aimed at the UNFCCC and focused on UNFCCC COP
guidance, five targeted LDC governments, two focused on GEF Agencies, four were aimed at the
LDCF Council, while the remaining twelve were directed to the LDCF team within the GEF
Secretariat. The evaluation found that the LDCF had catalytic effects in the sense that the NAPA
process opened up thinking about climate change and its impacts within LDC governments, in
most cases for the very first time; however, much work remained in order to mainstream
16
UNDP, Evaluation of UNDP Work with Least Developed Countries Fund and Special Climate Change Fund
Resources, 2009. UNDP Evaluation Office.
17
DANIDA, Joint External Evaluation: Operation of the Least Developed Countries Fund for Adaptation to Climate
Change. October 13 2009. In collaboration with IEO.
18
IEO, Executive Summary of the Joint External Evaluation: Operation of the Least Developed Countries Fund for
Adaptation to Climate Change, October 2009. Council Document GEF/LDCF.SCCF.7/5.
11
climate change awareness. LDCF portfolios tended to be quite relevant to national

development priorities. Lack of attention to gender-differentiated vulnerability in LDCFsupported activities led to gender being unevenly addressed across the NAPAs. The evaluation
reported widespread inefficiency in access to LDCF funds and project approval times. The 7th
LDCF/SCCF Council meeting in November 2009 unfortunately did not include a Joint Summary
of the Chairs, but a year later at the 9th LDCF/SCFF Council meeting the GEF Secretariat
provided an overview of follow up actions for the recommendations addressed to them.19
Recommendations to the parties to the UNFCCC included, among others:
The UNFCCC should reassess the role of the LDCF. What is the niche of the LDCF and
what constitutes an appropriate lifespan of the Fund?
Any replenishment of the LDCF for the longer term should be sufficient to support
whole NAPA implementation programs, rather than individual project implementation.
Future development, re-structuring and updating of the NAPA country reports need to
be considered. In order to better serve as a flexible and updated planning tool for
governments, adaptation priorities need to be established for the short, medium and
longer term, and the sequencing of priority implementation needs to be designed so
that effectiveness and synergies between actions are assured.
Recommendations to the LDCF team in the GEF Secretariat included, among others:
In order for the LDCF to play a complementary role to the emerging other climate
change financing mechanisms greater responsiveness and flexibility of procedures will
have to be introduced to ensure lack of duplication and complementarity.
All the NAPA priority projects should use evidence-based inquiry into the ways climate
change effects are differentiated between genders, introduce measures that identify
womens vulnerability to climate change, and listen to the voices of climate vulnerable
women.
Introduce a common tracking procedure across the LDCF and the agencies, so that the
status of a given project may be found irrespective of where it is in the cycle and with
which agency it is in the process.
25.
In 2010, DANIDA funded a follow-up review of actions taken by the GEF Secretariat and
the LDCF/SCCF Council in response to the evaluation reports recommendations.20 The report
concluded that the LDCF had been emerging from a somewhat difficult phase of establishment
19
GEF, Report on Actions Undertaken in Response and Follow Up to Joint External Evaluation: Operation of the
Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) for Adaptation to Climate Change, October 2010. Council Document
GEF/LDCF.SCCF.9/Inf.6.
20
DANIDA, Follow up to the LDCF Evaluation (Prepared by DANIDA), October 2010. Council Document
GEF/LDCF.SCCF.9/Inf.7.
12
and early operations into a period of significant improvement. Efforts had been made or were
underway at the time of the review to respond positively to most of the recommendations for
the LDCF Council and GEF Secretariat. The GEF Secretariat had taken steps to address gender
inequality via adaptation projects, committing to making gender issues an integral part of the
socio-economic aspect of projects, and adopting an updated project results frameworks that
included gender disaggregated indicators.21 Nevertheless, the report found that some issues
needed further attention, including delineating cooperation between the LDCF and other
adaptation funds, and uncertainty about the future financial regime for adaptation.
26.
The 2011 evaluation of the GEF Strategic Priority for Adaptation (SPA) pilot program
aimed to provide lessons and experiences from implementation of the first climate change
adaptation strategy supported by the GEF.22 One of the evaluations recommendations stated
that the GEF should continue to provide incentives to mainstream resilience and adaptation to
climate change into the GEF focal areas, as a means of reducing risks to the GEF portfolio. A
number of factors were flagged that could prevent adaptation mainstreaming, including limited
capacity for adaptation throughout the GEF system and gaps in scientific knowledge of specific
climate impacts. The evaluation noted that the pilots early stage allowed for only limited
conclusions on effectiveness and efficiency. Alignment with GEF focal areas was strong overall,
due to a requirement that all projects address one or more of the focal areas.
27.
The 2012 GEF Evaluation of Focal Area Strategies aimed to gain a deeper understanding
of the elements and mechanisms that make a focal area strategy successful. 23 The evaluation
concluded that, in most cases, the GEF-5 focal areas did not draw on a systematic identification
of the envisaged causal relationships between various elements of the relevant strategy, which
is an impediment to achieving catalytic results. Were the GEF to more systematically consider
paths toward broader adoption, this could improve. Technical Paper 7 of this evaluation
focused on adaptation under the LDCF and SCCF. 24 The paper affirmed that the LDCF/SCCF
strategy on adaptation largely reflects the current state of scientific knowledge and is sound
from a scientific perspective on the basis of UNFCCC COP guidance. Technical Paper 8 provides
an overview of COP guidance to the GEF. The evaluation found that the GEF was generally
responsive to UNFCCC guidance. 25
21
GEF, Updated Results-Based Management Framework for the Least Developed Countries Fund and the Special
Climate Change Fund and Adaptation Monitoring and Assessment Tracking Tool, November 2010. Council
Document GEF/LDCF.SCCF.9/Inf.4.
22
IEO, Evaluation of the GEF Strategic Priority for Adaptation (SPA), July 2011. Evaluation Report No. 61.
23
IEO, Evaluation of the GEF Focal Area Strategies, January 2013. Evaluation Report 78.
24
IEO, Evaluation of the GEF Focal Area Strategies Technical Paper 7: Climate Change Adaptation under LDCF and
SCCF, November 2012.
25
IEO, Evaluation of the GEF Focal Area Strategies Technical Paper 8: Collection of COP Guidance to the GEF for
the Four Conventions the GEF Serves as a Financial Mechanism, November 2012.
13
28.
The Fifth Overall Performance Study (OPS5), published in 2014, synthesizes conclusions
and evaluative evidence on adaptation to climate change.26 Adaptation to climate change is
included in OPS5 through various channels. It has been considered a focal area and included in
the IEOs evaluation streams such as country level evaluations and performance evaluations.
Adaptation is included through work on focal area strategies, Results Based Management and
tracking tools, multi-focal area (MFA) and multi-trust fund projects, and gender mainstreaming.
29.
OPS5 Technical Document 3 analyzed the implementation of GEF focal area strategies.27
It concluded that the proportion of multi-focal area (MFA) projects in the LDCF and SCCF was
relatively low since the combining of LDCF and SCCF resources with other focal area resources
in multi-trust fund (MTF) projects had only been introduced as part of the GEF-5 replenishment
period. At the time of the analysis, 14 percent of LDCF funds had gone to a total of 5 MTF
projects. OPS5 Technical Document 9 focused specifically on MFA projects. 28 It found that the
share of MFA projects was increasing over time, and LDCF projects were more likely to address
multi-focal concerns, compared to GEF Trust Fund projects.
30.
OPS5 Technical Document 19 provides preliminary findings of a quality-at-entry review
of a sample of projects approved to implement NAPAs to assess the extent to which they
respond to key issues identified by NAPAs and project design quality. 29 Following on Technical
Document 19 the IEO conducted further quality-at-entry reviews of approved NAPA
implementation projects, published in 2014.30 The review concluded that (1) a large majority of
NAPA implementation projects was aligned with their NAPA, (2) agriculture emerged as the key
adaptation need in 96 percent of NAPAs analyzed, followed by water resources management
(87%) and natural resources management (78 percent), (3) all projects were found to be
consistent with LDCF strategies, eligibility criteria, and priorities, (4) a high percentage of NAPA
projects were mainstreaming gender into adaptation initiatives, and (5) a large majority of
projects included wide stakeholder involvement and had risk assessment and mitigation
strategies in place.
31.
This evaluation of the LDCF uses previous evaluative evidence as foundation to depart
from, taking into account that each evaluation has its specific objectives and thus perspectives,
and respecting that aforementioned findings provide a snapshot of the LDCF and its operational
landscape at specific moments in time. As follow-up to the 2009 LDCF joint evaluation this
evaluation aims to complement the existing evidence base regarding the Funds performance.
26
IEO, The Fifth Overall Performance Study (OPS5), May 2014.

IEO, OPS5 Technical Document 3: Implementation of GEF Focal Area Strategies and Trends in Focal Area
Achievements, March 2013.
28
IEO, OPS5 Technical Document 9: Multi Focal Area Projects in GEF Portfolio, November 2013.
29
IEO, OPS5 Technical Document 19: Adaptation to Climate Change, November 2013.
30
IEO, The Least Developed Countries Fund: Review of the Implementation of NAPAs Unedited Version, April
2014.
27
14
Limitations
32.
Most LDCF projects (MSP/FSP) are still under implementation or in pre-implementation
stages. It was not possible to conduct an all-encompassing analysis of the results and
sustainability of outcomes of all projects at this stage, given that only 13 projects have been
completed. For projects at early stages of implementation the evaluation needed to
concentrate on a quality at entry review of the objectives and strategies as put forward by the
project documentation and complement this with (preliminary) information on project results
when available and appropriate. The analysis focused in part on highlighting illustrative
examples from projects for which sufficient information and lessons have been articulated.
33.
Another limitation is that only a small number of countries and projects were visited
during this evaluation. Field visits took place to Cambodia, Haiti, Lao PDR and Senegal, where 26
national projects, three regional projects and one global project are at various stages of
implementation. These 30 projects do not fully reflect the specificities and complexities
represented by the full portfolio of 280 LDCF supported projects. Nevertheless, discussions with
field level stakeholders have provided valuable and independent information, used in the
triangulation of findings.
IV.
ANALYSIS OF THE LDCF PORTFOLIO
34.
This chapter presents an overview of the LDCF portfolio composition and evolution since
the fund was established. Initially the LDCF financed the development of NAPA country reports
(EAs) and later in a new phase the Fund started funding concrete adaptation activities through
NAPA implementation projects (MSP/FSP). In February 2008 the GEF Secretariat received the
first implementation project submission for CEO endorsement under the LDCF. The October
2013 progress report for the LDCF/SCCF (GEF/LDCF.SCCF.15/03 2013) reported that a mediumsize project was approved by the GEF CEO, aiming to support the preparation of the National
Adaptation Plan (NAP) process in LDCs. At the LDCF evaluations cut-off date of 31 October
2015, one global project (GEF ID 5320) supporting the NAP process was under implementation,
while a second global project (GEF ID 5868) aimed at supporting LDCs in developing countrydriven NAP processes was Council approved. Given the small size of NAP focused projects these
have been included as an integral part of the LDCF portfolio of implementation projects, and
not treated as a separate category of NAP projects.
Portfolio Composition and Evolution
35.
An overview of the LDCF portfolio by number of projects and funding is presented in
Table 3. As of end October 2015 the portfolio consists of 223 projects (Table 1, N=223), when
taking into account those that are Council approved, CEO endorsed/approved, under
implementation and completed. These projects received a total of $1.04 billion from the LDCF
and $4.41 billion in co-financing. The 51 Enabling Activities (EAs) financed the preparation of
NAPA country reports in 51 countries. The portfolio consists largely of full-size projects
accounting for 72 percent of the projects and 96 percent of the LDCF financing.
15
Table 3: Number of and Budgetary Allocation for LDCF Projects by Project Type
Project type
No. of
projects
(#)
Budgetary allocation (1,000 $)

Grant value
Co-financing
Co-finance
(as percentage of
total)
Total
EA
51
11,274
1,260
12,534
10.0%
MSP
11
21,874
59,100
80,974
73.0%
FSP
161
1,003,803
4,348,961
5,352,764
81.2%
MSP/FSP total
172
1,025,677
4,408,062
5,433,738
81.1%
Grand total
223
1,036,951
4,409,321
5,446,272
81.0%
Only Council approved, CEO endorsed/approved, under implementation and completed projects are taken into account.
LDCF Portfolio by GEF Replenishment Phase

36.
The beginning of the LDCF, during GEF-3, involved mainly Enabling Activities (EAs)
financing a large number of small projects to formulate the NAPA country reports (EAs). The
financing of NAPA implementation projects increased during GEF-4, mainly FSPs (33) and five
MSPs, while the NAPA preparation process was supported in four countries. The GEF-5 phase
had the most LDCF activities funded, including three Enabling Activities, four MSP and 122 FSP
projects amounting to a total of $842.83 million accounting for 88 percent of total LDCF
funding. Financing of LDCF projects has slowed down during GEF-6, and as of October 2015 has
only amounted to $44.93 million. Due to the cut-off date for this evaluation, pledges made at
COP 21 in Paris are not reflected here. (Table 4 and Figure 3, N=223)
Table 4: LDCF Projects' Grant Value by GEF Replenishment Phase (1,000 $)
GEF replenishment
1
phase
NAPA country
reports (EAs)

MSP
FSP
GEF-3
9,735
928
GEF-4
880
11,218
GEF-5
659
9,728
GEF-6
Total:
1
11,274
21,874
MSP/FSP
total
Grand total
928
10,663
126,423
137,641
138,521
832,444
842,172
842,831
44,935
44,935
44,935
1,003,803
1,025,677
1,036,951
16
Figure 3: Distribution of LDCF Projects by GEF Replenishment Phase

4%
GEF-6
3%
81%
GEF-5
58%
13%
GEF-4
19%
% of total LDCF project funding

% of total LDCF project portfolio
1%
GEF-3
21%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
LDCF Projects and Funding by Agency

37.
UNDP is the GEF Agency for the largest number of LDCF projects123 (55.2 percent), 82
of which are FSPs. UNEP is the GEF Agency for 39 projects, FAO for 19, the World Bank for 16,
AfDB for 14, IFAD for 8, and ADB and UNIDO are the GEF Agencies for two projects each. IUCN
has one project in the pipeline as of October 2015, and therefore, is not included in the earlier
portfolio overview (Figure 1).
38.
A large percentage of the LDCF portfolio is implemented through UN Agencies. UNDP,
UNEP, and FAO together account for 81.5 percent of the total number LDCF projects and 71.5
percent of LDCF funding reflecting the prominence of UN agencies as GEF Agencies. UNDP and
UNEP have smaller projects, an average of $4.10 million and $3.32 million respectively,
compared to $7.16 million for the World Bank, and $7.45 million for the AfDB. All 11 MSP are
implemented through UNDP and UNEP and, with the exception of two, all Enabling Activities
were implemented through UNDP and UNEP. The World Bank supported two countries,
Madagascar and Sao Tome and Principe, with their NAPA country reports (EAs). UN Agencies
generate the larger amounts of co-financing (Figure 4, N=223). UNDPs LDCF projects leverage
the largest amount, at 52% of all co-financing. Figure 5 (N=223) shows co-finance share as a
percentage of project budget; for example if a projects LDCF grant value is $2.5 million and cofinance is $7.5 million, then the co-finance share as percentage of project budget is 75 percent.
The ADB leverages the most co-financing as percentage of project budget for NAPA
implementation projects, while the World Bank leverages the next average largest co-financing
amount by project.
17
Figure 4: Distribution of LDCF Financing and Co-financing by GEF Agency

48.7%
UNDP
52.0%
12.5%
UNEP
7.3%
10.3%
FAO
8.3%
11.1%
World Bank
14.1%
10.1%
AfDB
10.1%
5.0%
IFAD
4.0%
ADB
UNIDO
As % of total LDCF funding
1.9%
% of total LDCF co-finance leveraged
3.9%
0.5%
0.3%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Note: Only council approved, CEO endorsed/approved, under implementation and completed projects are taken into account.
Figure 5: Co-Finance Share as Percentage of Project Budget by GEF Agency

100.0%
90.0%
82.0%
80.0%
71.4%
77.5%
84.5%
89.5%
81.0%
77.1%
71.3%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
UNDP
UNEP
FAO
World Bank
AfDB
IFAD
ADB
UNIDO
39.
Figures 6 and 7 (N=223) disaggregate the LDCF portfolio region in terms of number of
projects and funding. The data includes 13 global or regional projects, with a combined LDCF
allocation of $106.15 million. As the figures show, the majority of projects in the LDCF portfolio
18
are in the Africa region, whether measured in terms of number of projects (149 or 66.8 percent
of the total number of projects) or funding share ($660.10 million or 63.7 percent of total
funding). About 25 percent of the projects are in Asia both in terms of number of projects and
funding. In the Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region the portfolio includes five projects in
Haiti, the only LDC in the LAC region. Small island developing states (SIDS) are well represented
with 41 projects and totaling a grant value of $163.34 million. With 36 African and 14 Asian
LDCs, the numbers presented are proportional to the geographical distribution of the 51 LDCs.
Figure 6: Number of LDCF Projects by Region
5
5 8
Africa
Asia and Pacific
LAC
Regional
Global
56
149
Notes: Cut-off date for portfolio analysis data was 31 October 2015. Values might have changed since.
Figure 7: LDCF Projects' grant value by region (1,000 $)

$14,613
$16,705
$94,656
$250,873
$660,103
Africa
Asia and Pacific
LAC
Regional
Global
Notes: Cut-off date for portfolio analysis data was 31 October 2015. Values might have changed since.
19
Project Status and Portfolio Status

40.
The LDCF project portfolio is maturing with virtually all LDCs having completed their
NAPA country report and over 50 percent of NAPA implementation projects currently under
implementation or completed. Table 1 (shown earlier) and Table 5 (below, N=223) provide a
breakdown of the status of the 223 projects in the LDCF portfolio that were council approved,
CEO endorsed/approved, under implementation and/or completed as of October 2015. The
majority of LDCF projects are under implementation101 amounting to $589.30 million or 57
percent of the approved portfolio. A total of 63 projects have been completed including 50
NAPA country reports (EAs) and thirteen NAPA implementation projects, of which 6 were MSPs
and 7 FSPs, accounting a small percentage of total funding (less than 5 percent). Only 12
projects of the entire portfolio of 280 projects have been cancelled or dropped.
41.
The evaluation found that, as of October 2015, 26 NAPA implementation projects
accounting for $185.82 million are PM recommended, which signifies they are technically
cleared and waiting for resources to be available to finance the project. Technical clearance was
first introduced in the October 2014 progress report for the LDCF/SCCF (GEF/LDCF.SCCF.17/03)
in order to accept proposals into the pipeline for which there was at the point of acceptance
no funding available but that were otherwise technically sound. The October 2015 LDCF/SCCF
progress report (GEF/LDCF.SCCF.19/03) indicates that resources amounting to $254.48 million
were sought for 35 projects that had been technically cleared by the GEF Secretariat.
42.
The evaluation found that 16 projects are classified as pending, though final cross
checking against a GEF Secretariat list of PM recommended projects showed three projects
(GEF IDs 8010, 8033 and 9131) that were actually PM recommended as of October 2015.
Further analysis of the project documentation available for the remaining thirteen pending
projects found that the status of some of the projects marked pending deserved a revision.
Discrepancies in project data are a recurring finding when it comes to project information from
the GEF Secretariats Project Management Information System (PMIS). The 2009 LDCF joint
evaluation also found that some country information in the database had not been updated for
more than a year. A quality assessment of PMIS information was not a specific objective of this
evaluation, but project data harvesting from PMIS revealed 58 broken links to project
documentation for 46 projects. Moreover, the cross-checking of project data with GEF agencies
revealed further discrepancies in the data coming from the PMIS. This translates - for example in differences in the Funds value of $1,036 million for Council approved projects, as extracted
from PMIS (Table 5, N=223), in comparison to the $963.66 million figure of total pledges
outstanding and contributions finalized as reported by the Trustee in the LDCF/SCCF status and
financial reports (Figure 13).
43.
The LDCF project portfolio is maturing. Almost all LDCs have completed their NAPA
country report (EA), with the exception of South Sudan, and Bangladesh has revised its 2005
NAPA country report. 71.2 percent of the LDCF project portfolio is currently under
implementation or completed. For the NAPA implementation projects (MSP/FSP) specifically,
52.5 percent of NAPA implementation projects are currently under implementation or
20
completed.31 The LDCF project portfolio also shows a growing number of projects that are
technically cleared, but for which funding is not available at the moment at which these
projects enter the pipeline.
Table 5: LDCF Projects' Grant Value by Project Status (1,000 $)
NAPA country
reports (EAs)
12
Project status
Completed

MSP
11,055
CEO endorsed/approved
36,424
47,479
8,057
581,245
589,302
589,302
82,013
82,013
82,232
314,413
317,938
317,938
14,467
14,467
14,467
183,635
185,825
185,825
82,167
82,167
82,167
1,463
92,748
94,211
94,211
PPG approved
2,190
Pending
Cancelled or dropped
Grand total
26,132
3,525
PM recommended
MSP/FSP
total
10,292
219
Council approved
FSP
Total:
11,274
25,527
1,376,819
1,402,346
1,413,620
Total value for projects that

were Council approved, CEO
endorsed/approved, under
implementation and completed
11,274
21,874
1,003,803
1,025,677
1,036,951
1
2
Cut-off date for portfolio analysis data was 31 October 2015. Values might have changed since.
Only Council approved, CEO endorsed/approved, under implementation and completed projects taken into account.
V.
RELEVANCE OF LDCF SUPPORT
44.
This section focuses on two key questions regarding the relevance of LDCF support:
-
How relevant is LDCF support in light of UNFCCC COP guidance and decisions, and GEFs
adaptation strategy?
How relevant is LDCF support in light of LDCs own broader developmental policies,
plans and programs?
45.
The LDCF has supported activities that, for the most part, are highly relevant. There is a
generally high degree of coherence between LDCF funded activities and both the guidance and
priorities of the UNFCCC and the GEF, and the development priorities of countries receiving
LDCF support, although the data in support of the latter dimension are less comprehensive.
31
Figures exclude cancelled and dropped projects.
21
Relevance in Relation to COP Guidance and Decisions of the UNFCCC

46.
The evaluation systematically reviewed the degree of alignment between NAPA country
reports (EAs) prepared with LDCF support (50 reports, see Annex 1) 32 and subsequent NAPA
implementation projects (MSP/FSP) financed by the LDCF (217 projects) on the one hand and,
on the other hand: 1) relevant UNFCCC guidance and decisions, 2) GEFs strategic pillars for
adaptation, and 3) GEFs strategic objectives for adaptation. The evaluation team also
considered the potential of NAPA country reports (EAs) and LDCF funded NAPA implementation
projects (MSP/FSP) to make contributions towards GEF focal areas other than climate change.
The full data set of the data discussed in this section is presented in Annex 4.
Alignment with UNFCCC guidance and decisions
47.
Regarding the NAPA country reports (EAs) alignment with UNFCCC guidance and
decisions (Box 2), the evaluation found that 94 percent of the NAPA country reports (EAs) is
aligned from a large to an extremely large extent with four of the eight elements of UNFCCC
guidance considered. 89.8 percent of the NAPA country reports is aligned from a large to an
extremely large aligned with six of the eight elements of UNFCCC guidance. The least alignment
was found between NAPA country reports and UNFCCC guidance calling for interventions to be
cost-effective and complementary to other funding sources (here only 73.9% of NAPAs is
aligned from a large to an extremely large extent), and for interventions to have a view to
increasing resilience to the adverse effects of climate change (where 78 percent of NAPA
country reports is aligned from a large to an extremely large extent).
48.
Regarding the alignment between LDCF funded projects implementing NAPAs (NAPA
implementation projects) and UNFCCC guidance and decisions, the evaluation found a similarly
high degree of coherence for most of the seven elements of UNFCCC guidance considered: 95
percent of projects is aligned from a large to extremely large extent with four of the seven
elements of the guidance, while 86.2 percent is aligned from a large to an extremely large
extent with six of the seven elements of guidance. Once again, the lowest degree of alignment
(79.6 percent is aligned from a large to an extremely large extent) related to UNFCCC guidance
calling for projects to be cost-effective and complementary to other funding sources.
Alignment with GEF adaptation strategic pillars
49.
The evaluation found that the degree of alignment between NAPA country reports,
NAPA implementation projects and GEFs strategic pillars for adaptation, while also high, is
neither as high nor as consistent as with UNFCCC guidance. 88 percent of NAPA country reports
(EAs) was found to be aligned from a large to an extremely large extent with both GEF strategic
pillars (Figure 8, N=51). 89 percent of NAPA implementation projects is similarly highly aligned
with one GEF strategic pillar but only about two-thirds of the projects is aligned from a large to
32
The NAPA (EA) project document was assessed instead of the NAPA country report for South Sudan.
22
an extremely large extent with the other pillar expanding synergies with other GEF focal areas
(Figure 9, N=217), which is further discussed in Chapter VII Emerging Results and their
Sustainability.
Figure 8: Alignment of NAPA Country Reports (EAs) with GEF Adaptation Strategic Pillars
1. Integrating climate change adaptation into
relevant policies, plans, programs and decisionmaking processes in a continuous, progressive
and iterative manner as a means to identify and
address short-, medium- and long- term
adaptation needs.
87.8%
2. Expanding synergies with other GEF focal

areas.
From a large to an extremely large extent
10.2% 2.0%
88.0%
To a moderate extent
6.0%
6.0%
From a small to an extremely small extent
Figure 9: Alignment of NAPA Implementation Projects with GEF Adaptation Strategic Pillars
relevant policies, plans, programs and decisionmaking processes in a continuous, progressive and
iterative manner as a means to identify and
address short-, medium- and long- term
adaptation needs.
89.4%
2. Expanding synergies with other GEF focal areas.
63.6%
Unable to assess
6.5% 4.1%
19.4%
17.0% 5.1%
Contributions to other focal areas

50.
A final measure of the relevance of LDCF funded activities considered by the evaluation
was the extent of these activities support for other GEF focal areas outside the climate change
focus of the LDCF. Here, 94.1 percent of NAPA country reports (EAs) potentially offers support
in the area of biodiversity protection, while 78.4 percent appears likely to provide support in
the land degradation focal area (Table 6, N=51). These figures reflect the strong focus among
LDCs with supporting the adaptation of their agricultural sectors and related support sectors.
The field visits to - and NAPA country reports (EAs) of - Cambodia, Haiti, Lao PDR and Senegal
23
support this. The four key vulnerable sectors identified in Cambodia are agriculture, water
resources, coastal zones and public health. Senegal also identified water resources, agriculture
and coastal zones as key vulnerable sectors. For Haiti key sectors identified are soil degradation,
agriculture, coastal zones and water resources, while in Lao PDR the key vulnerable sectors
identified are agriculture, forestry, water resources and public health. The apparent potential
for support to other focal areas is far more modest (15.7 percent for international waters, 7.8
percent for persistent organic pollutants - POPs) or insignificant (in case of the mercury and
ozone depleting substances focal areas).
Table 6: Other Focal Areas to which NAPA Country Reports (EAs) Potentially Contribute
12
Focal areas
Biodiversity
48
94.1%
Land degradation
40
78.4%
International waters
15.7%
Persistent organic pollutants (POP)
7.8%
Mercury
0.0%
Ozone depleting substances (ODS)
0.0%
NO FOCAL AREAS OTHER THAN CLIMATE CHANGE APPLY
2.0%
Multiple answers possible
Percentages per focal area towards N=51
51.
Among NAPA implementation projects, over half has the potential to contribute to
controlling land degradation (57.6 percent) or biodiversity protection (46.5 percent) (Table 7,
N=217). Once again, potential contributions in other areas are far more modest: six percent for
international waters and less than one percent for the other GEF focal areas.
Table 7: Other Focal Areas to which NAPA Implementation Projects Potentially Contribute
12
Focal areas
Land degradation
125
57.6%
Biodiversity
101
46.5%
13
6.0%
Mercury
0.9%
Ozone depleting substances (ODS)
0.9%
Persistent organic pollutants (POP)
0.9%
67
30.9%
International waters

1
2

24
52.
The results of the LDCF portfolio analysis summarized above corroborated earlier
findings of the UNFCCCs Fifth Review of the Financial Mechanism, which found GEF programs
and policies, including those related to the LDCF, to be consistent with the objectives of the
Convention.33
Relevance to Countries Environmental and Sustainable Development Agendas
53.
The evaluation addressed the question of alignment of LCDF supported activities with
national policies in several ways. Each NAPA document was reviewed to determine the extent
to which its plan for mainstreaming NAPA priorities into national policy was clearly and
plausibly described. Then each NAPA implementation project was reviewed to determine the
degree to which the projects focus was in line with the primary priorities of its respective
NAPA. These two analyses, while helpful, were relatively weak substitutes for a review of
relevant national environmental and sustainable development policies themselves, but field
visits nonetheless provided some evidence through a wide ranging set of interviews with
national government focal points and other stakeholders in four countries where the LDCF is
active (Cambodia, Haiti, Lao PDR and Senegal), as well as interviews with representatives of GEF
Agencies involved with the LDCF, GEF Secretariat staff and GEF Council members. The results of
these document reviews and interviews are summarized here.
Alignment between LDCF supported activities and national development policies and agendas
54.
The first of two portfolio assessments looked at the alignment of LDCF supported NAPA
country reports (EAs) with the policy agendas of their respective countries. It determined that
almost three quarters (72.5 percent) of NAPAs is very highly aligned, that is they clearly detail
the ways in which NAPA priorities will be linked with existing national policies, plans and
strategies. Almost all the rest, (23.5 percent) are judged to be highly aligned, in that they
describe the mainstreaming of NAPA priorities into national policy agendas in general terms,
but do not provide complete descriptions of how these priorities are to be linked with existing
or emerging national policies and other initiatives (Table 8, N=51).
55.
The second portfolio assessment considered the extent to which NAPA implementation
projects reflect the primary priorities originally identified in the NAPA country reports. The
analysis of priority areas as identified in NAPA country reports (EAs) determined the top five
primary priority areas to be (1) agriculture (96.1 percent), (2) climate information systems (94.1
percent), (3) disaster risk management (90.2 percent), (4) natural resource management and
fragile ecosystems (62.8 percent) and (5) coastal zone management (also 62.8 percent) (Table
9, N=51).
33
UNFCCC, Decision 7/CP.7 Funding under the Convention, 2001. UNFCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, Decision 7/CP.7.
25
Table 8: NAPA Country Reports' Alignment with Countries' Environmental and Sustainable
Development Agendas
Very high: The mainstreaming of NAPA priorities into the country's environmental and
sustainable development agendas is clearly explained, including an overview
of linkages with existing and developing policies, plans and strategies
37
72.5%
High: The mainstreaming of NAPA priorities into the country's environmental and
sustainable development agendas is mentioned in general terms, but linkages to
specific existing and developing policies, plans and strategies are incomplete or lacking
12
23.5%
Low: The mainstreaming of NAPA priorities into the country's environmental and
sustainable development agendas is not adequately addressed
2.0%
Not: The NAPA does not address ANY linkages between NAPA priorities and the
country's environmental and sustainable development agendas
0.0%
Unable to Assess
2.0%
51
100.0%
Table 9: Priority Areas Identified in NAPA Country Reports (EAs)

1
Priority areas
Agriculture (including animal husbandry and fishery)
49
96.1%
Climate information systems
48
94.1%
Disaster risk management
46
90.2%
NRM; fragile ecosystems (incl. mountain ecosystems, mangroves, forestry, wildlife,

land degradation and management)
32
62.8%
Coastal zone management (other than mangrove ecosystems/reconstruction)
32
62.8%
Water resource management
30
58.8%
Human health
29
56.9%
Infrastructural development
26
51.0%
Renewable energy / energy efficiency / energy security
23
45.1%
Climate education
19
37.2%
Tourism
16
31.4%
Climate smart urban areas
13
25.5%
17.6%
15.7%
Sustainable rural livelihoods (other than agriculture and NRM)

Other (please specify)
1
2
51

"Institutional capacity development" mentioned 6 times
26
Total
56.
A similar assessment for the NAPA implementation projects (MSP/FSP) determined that
the top five priority areas addressed by these are (1) agriculture (72.8 percent), (2) water
resource management (61.8 percent), (3) climate information systems (60.4 percent), (4)
natural resource management and fragile ecosystems (55.3 percent) and (5) disaster risk
management (50.7 percent) (Table 10, N=217). Coastal zone management was identified as a
top five priority area in assessment of NAPA country reports, but the analysis of NAPA
implementation projects put it in 9th place. Still close to 25 percent of NAPA implementation
projects address coastal zone management as a priority area. Water resource management was
identified as a 2nd place priority area in the NAPA implementation projects, while for the NAPA
country reports it did not make the top five of priority areas; though percentage-wise there is
little difference with water resource management being mentioned in about 60% of the NAPA
country reports as well as implementation projects.
Table 10: Priority Areas Addressed by NAPA Implementation Projects
1
Priority areas
158
72.8%
134
61.8%
131
60.4%
NRM; fragile ecosystems (incl. mountain ecosystems, mangroves, forestry, wildlife,

land degradation and management)
120
55.3%
110
50.7%
103
47.5%
Climate education
101
46.5%
55
25.3%
Coastal zone management (other than mangrove ecosystems/reconstruction)
54
24.9%
Institutional Capacity Building
41
18.9%
Tourism
20
9.2%
Human health
18
8.3%
12
5.5%
12
5.5%
4.1%
Other, please specify
217 Total
Excludes cancelled projects
3
The 'institutional capacity building' category came from the 'other' answer category
4
Included 'technology transfer', 'adaptation mainstreaming', 'financial risk management' and 'weather insurance'.
1
2
27
57.
This analysis further determined that the large majority (87.6 percent) of NAPA
implementation projects (MSP/FSP) does address primary priority areas identified in that
countrys NAPA report. Virtually all the rest of the implementation projects reviewed (10.6
percent), while not addressing areas of primary priority identified within their NAPA, they do
address other priority areas that have been identified (Table 11, N=217).
Table 11: NAPA Implementation Projects' Alignment with NAPA Country Reports Priorities
Very high: The implementation projects' outcome areas address primary priority areas
as listed / outlined in the NAPA country report
190
87.6%
High: The implementation projects' outcome areas do not address primary priority areas
as listed / outlined in the NAPA country report, but address other priorities that are
outlined in the NAPA country report
23
10.6%
Low: The implementation projects' might touch upon some priority areas, but do not
address specific priorities as outlined in the NAPA country report in a structural manner
0.9%
Not: The implementation projects do not address ANY of the priorities (primary or
other) outlined in the NAPA country report
0.0%
Unable to Assess
0.9%
217
100.0%
Total, excluding cancelled projects:
National stakeholders perspectives on relevance of LDCF support to national development

priorities
58.
The evaluation conducted a series of stakeholder interviews and project site visits in
four countries where LDCF supports NAPA activities. There was a remarkably high degree of
consensus among interviewees regarding the relevance of LDCF support in these countries.
Government stakeholders and others confirmed that LDCF support is highly relevant to national
environmental and sustainable development agendas, particularly in rural areas where this
support complements national poverty alleviation agendas, for example by increasing the
resilience of small holder agriculture and improving small holders water management
capacities. Concern was expressed in one country regarding the (limited) extent to which the
adaptation agenda promoted by LDCF may be finding its way into mainstream economic
development strategies, as opposed to a more restricted domain of environmental and
resource management. But in all countries visited, LDCF support was confirmed to be even
more relevant than it was ten years ago when most NAPAs were prepared. In the subsequent
decade the need for adaptation efforts has been repeatedly highlighted; longer droughts and
more extreme temperatures and rainfall are examples of climatic events LDCs have to cope
with and such events further emphasize the need for and relevance of LDCF support. While
NAPAs and the projects stemming from them are deemed highly relevant, a number of national
stakeholders mentioned the need to update these plans of action to reflect changing
circumstances, as accelerated climate change unfolds and as new technologies and approaches
for addressing climate change are emerging. This links to the (potential) role of the developing
NAP process.
28
International stakeholders perspectives on relevance of LDCF support to national development

priorities
59.
The various GEF Agencies implementing activities with LDCF support have their own
internal systems for ensuring that their programs and projects are clearly and consistently
guided by each countrys national and sectorial development priorities. This extends to the
projects they carry out with LDCF support, which must also be aligned with these expressed
national priorities. In this way the GEF Agencies have been able to apply LDCF resources
consistently to render priority national initiatives more climate resilient, in ways that reflect the
adaptation priorities identified in the countries NAPA country reports (EAs). This support has
been above all in national agricultural sectors, where the production systems of the poorest
populations in these countries are typically most vulnerable to accelerated climate change.
From the perspective of GEF Council members interviewed, the LDCF has established itself as
an important (though underfunded) instrument for responding to the needs of the poorest
members of the global community, for whom adaptation to climate change is a far more
compelling short-term imperative than mitigation activities.
VI.
EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY OF THE LDCF
60.
This chapter addresses issues of effectiveness and efficiency of the LDCF. The evaluation
assessed how effective and efficient the LDCF is in reaching its objectives and emerging results
through the following questions:
-
How effective is the LDCF in reaching the GEFs three strategic adaptation objectives?
What are the main factors that have been affecting the Funds efficiency?
How has resource predictability, or the lack thereof, affected the Funds programming?
How efficient is the Funds project cycle?
Effectiveness in Achieving Objectives

61.
The assessment of the effectiveness of the LDCF focused on the supported interventions
achieving the three objectives of the GEF programming strategy on adaptation (Box 3):
-
Reduce the vulnerability of people, livelihoods, physical assets and natural systems to
the adverse effects of climate change;

adaptation;
processes.
62.
The evaluation assessed the alignment of NAPA country reports (EAs) and NAPA
implementation projects (MSP/FSP) with the objectives to reduce vulnerability, build adaptive
capacity, and integrate adaption into relevant plans, policies and related processes. NAPA
29
implementation projects showed a very high degree of alignment with all three objectives, with
the highest alignment (96.7 percent aligned from a large to an extremely large extent) on
strengthening institutional and technical capacities for effective climate change adaptation
(Figure 10, N=217).
Figure 10: Alignment of NAPA Implementation Projects with GEF Adaptation Strategic
Objectives
1. Reduce the vulnerability of
people, livelihoods, physical assets
and natural systems to the adverse
effects of climate change.
96.3%
1.9% 1.9%
2. Strengthen institutional and

technical capacities for effective
climate change adaptation.
96.7%
2.8% 0.5%
3. Integrate climate change

adaptation into relevant policies,
plans and associated processes.
89.8%
7.0%
3.3%
63.
A similar assessment of the NAPA country reports showed similar trend (Figure 11,
N=51); 87.8 percent of NAPA country reports (EAs) was aligned from a large to an extremely
large extent with all three of the GEFs strategic objectives. The similarity of results, comparing
NAPA country report with NAPA implementation project data, translates in a very high
correlation coefficient between the variables (r = 0.96).
64.
Completed projects have contributed to achieving the objectives of the strategy. For
example, a Congo DR project (GEF ID 3718) helped reduce vulnerability in rural populations in
four selected sites by promoting the renewal of agro-genetic material through the contribution
of genetic material more suited to expected weather conditions. Similarly aimed at vulnerability
reduction was the Bhutan project (GEF ID 3219); it reduced the risk of glacial lake outburst
flood (GLOF) from the Thorthormi Lake by lowering the water level by 5 meters, and an
automated GLOF early warning system (EWS) was installed, covering more than 90 percent of
households in the 21 vulnerable communities downstream of the Punatsangchu River in the
Punakha-Wangdue valley. In the case of Rwanda (GEF ID 3838) the human and institutional
capacity was strengthened to effectively utilize the hydro-meteorological network and to
conduct climate risk assessment and forecasting. Another example of strengthening
institutional and technical capacities for effective climate change adaptation is the Gambia
project (GEF ID 3728); the Gambia's hydro-meteorological network was rehabilitated, upgraded
30
and equipped, and human capacity enhanced through the training and recruitment of hydrometeorological staff to use the strengthened network. Similarly the number of institutional
agreements designed to improve climate information networks in Niger (GEF ID 3319) was 325
percent greater than planned, and the project in Samoa (GEF ID 3358) proved instrumental in
strengthening cross-sectorial collaboration and setting the foundation for climate early warning
systems application in subsequent NAPA implementation projects. The same project is also a
good example regarding the integration of climate change adaptation into relevant agriculture
and health policies, which was the primary purpose of the project, leading to informed decision
making as to best adaptation options. The previously mentioned Rwanda project resulted in all
of Rwandas 30 districts having integrated climate change adaptation activities in their District
Development Plans (DDPs). Climate change mainstreaming guidelines were produced for four
sectors: agriculture, energy and infrastructure, environment and natural resources, and health.
Figure 11: Alignment of NAPA Country Reports (EAs) with GEF Adaptation Strategic Objectives
94.0%

92.0%

adaptation into
relevant policies, plans and
associated processes.
87.8%
6.0%
4.0% 4.0%
10.2% 2.0%
65.
One of the interview questions also related to the likelihood that LDCF supported
interventions will achieve the GEF adaptation strategic objectives. The majority of stakeholders
interviewed indicated that it is very likely that the NAPA implementation projects they are
familiar with, or involved in, will reach their objectives in line with the GEF strategic objectives,
because they feel these projects have been designed well and are aligned with local priorities
and context. Country level stakeholders confirmed the likelihood of reducing vulnerability
mostly at the project level. For example in Senegal, reducing vulnerability is especially likely at
the community level where activities are targeting the most urgent vulnerabilities of rural
communities, including the progressive salinization of their agricultural soils and irrigation
water, the erosion of agricultural soils, and the degradation of water resources. LDCF activities
have strengthening institutional capacities and integrated adaptation into policies and plans at
several levels. Institutional and technical capacities in systematic adaptation planning have
31
been developed at the ministerial, district and village levels in Lao PDR. In Cambodia, LDCF
activities have played a crucial role in supporting climate change priorities in national and subnational strategies and policies. However, some country level stakeholders, especially in Haiti,
have expressed concerns about the lengthy approval process for projects that can negatively
impact project relevance, decreasing the LDCFs effectiveness in reaching the three strategic
objectives.
66.
A quality at entry review was carried out for all in-country NAPA implementation
projects (N=116) that were CEO endorsed/approved or under implementation. This assessment
included child projects, but excluded the parents. The review assessed the design of projects
and shed light on the probability of projects delivering tangible adaptation benefits.
67.
The evaluation showed that nearly all projects (96.6 percent of projects scored in the
large to extremely large extent range) clearly describe the intended adaptation benefits and
convey the country's adaptation aspirations (Figure 12). In a very high percentage of projects
(92.2 percent), the description of adaptation benefits is realistically taking into consideration
the country's context (including the countrys institutional and governance capabilities) and
90.4 percent of the projects takes into account potential major risks and includes sufficient risk
mitigation measures. Projects were not as well designed when considering the measurability of
results, though still 85.2 percent of projects scored in the large to extremely large extent range
in terms of explaining the adaptation benefits in measurable terms. The remaining 14.7 percent
of NAPA implementation projects could improve their linkages with the 'adaptation monitoring
and assessment tool' (AMAT) and their M&E frameworks.
Figure 12: NAPA Implementation Projects Quality at Entry Review
The adaptation benefits are clearly

described
96.6%
The adaptation benefits described are

realistic in the country's context
92.2%
The adaptation benefits are explained

in terms of measurable results
85.2%
The project takes into account potential

major risks and includes sufficient risk
mitigation measures
3.4%
90.4%
32
7.8%
13.0%
1.7%
7.8%
1.7%
68.
Overall the quality at entry review showed that over 98.3 percent of reviewed NAPA
implementation projects had a high to very high probability of delivering tangible adaptation
benefits (Table 12, N=116). 52.6 percent of the projects addressed adaptation issues in project
design, and the adaptation benefits are realistic and measurable. For these projects with a very
high probability of delivering tangible adaptation benefits, the project baseline is discussed,
project components take into account existing and potential risks, and include risk mitigation
measures. 45.7 percent of the NAPA implementation projects are rated to have a high
probability of delivering tangible adaptation benefits; most of the adaptation issues to be
addressed are clearly explained, most adaptation benefits are realistic though not always
measurable. The project baseline needs to be improved, as does the risks appreciation and
mitigation measures.
Table 12: Probability of NAPA Implementation Projects Delivering Tangible Adaptation
Benefits
1
Probability Rating
Very high: The adaptation issues to be addressed are clearly explained, and adaptation
benefits are realistic and measurable. The project baseline is discussed and all project
components take into account existing environmental, governmental, sectorial and other
potential risks, and include risk mitigation measures.
61
52.6%
High: Most of the adaptation issues to be addressed are clearly explained, most adaptation
benefits are realistic though not always measurable. The project baseline needs improving,
as does the risks appreciation and formulation of risk mitigation measures.
53
45.7%
Low: Most of the adaptation issues to be addressed are clearly explained though the
project does not present the most realistic options for the issues identified. Measurability
leaves much to be desired, as does the baseline. Some project risks have been identified,
but risk mitigation measures are mostly absent.
0.9%
Very Low: Adaptation issues as well as the project's adaptation benefits are poorly
described. A baseline is absent and a project risk analysis is lacking.
0.0%
Unable to Assess
0.9%
116
100.0%
Total:
Quality at entry review took place for all in-country projects that were CEO endorsed/approved or under implementation.
This included child projects, but excluded the regional and global parents.
Efficiency of the Fund

69.
The project portfolio analysis identified project delays by comparing expected with
actual dates of project timelines. The analysis found that 45 projects have experienced delays in
the approval process and during implementation, accounting for 20.7 percent of the portfolio,
excluding cancelled projects (Table 13, N=217). Seventy-five percent of the delays was
experienced during GEF-4 (Table 14, N=217). When the LDCF started, many countries found it
difficult to access the fund due to a lack of transparency of, and knowledge regarding the
procedures and requirements. Over time, and with the help of the GEF Agencies who improved
country capacity to formulate projects, countries learned how to work with the Fund. Measures
33
were also taken to expedite the project cycle to approve projects on a rolling basis. This could
be the reason for a lower percentage (12.1 percent) of delayed projects during GEF-5.
Table 13: Identification of Delays in NAPA Implementation Projects
Yes
No
1
Total:
1
45
20.7%
172
79.3%
217
100.0%
Table 14: Identification of Delays in NAPA Implementation Projects

Yes
No
Yes%
GEF-3
0.0%
GEF-4
28
75.7%
GEF-5
16
116
12.1%
GEF-6
45
2.2%
45
172
217
Total:
1
70.
Projects can be delayed for many reasons and it is difficult to determine whether
underlying causes for delays are internal or external in nature. There often is a mix of reasons, a
series of events resulting in delays and not one single reason. At first glance there seems to be a
trend for the percentage of projects to be delayed to go down over time, but one has to take
into account that in GEF-5 and GEF-6 several projects are in an early stage and delays may still
materialize over time.
71.
The evaluation assessed factors that have affected the efficiency of the LDCF.
Stakeholders interviewed and field visits point to mostly negative factors. A positive factor is
that the LDCF is administered by the GEF and since it started the fund has benefited from wellestablished structures and procedures. Some negative factors cited are unstable governments,
climate extremes and natural disasters, co-funding requirements, and the prolonged project
approval processes. In Haiti, current political instability creates uncertainty for government
officials to endorse new projects while some projects that have been in the pipeline too long
need to be redesigned to be relevant in the current context.
72.
The most frequently noted factor is the unpredictability of funding. The LDCF is
replenished through voluntary contributions and pledges have been made in an ad hoc manner.
Over time the trend has been an increase in contributions (Figure 13). The GEF Secretariat
reported to Council in its November 2012 progress report (GEF/LDCF.SCCF.13/Inf.02) that while
cumulative pledges had increased over the past ten years, pledges vary significantly each year.
34
In addition the demand of the LDCs to address needs identified in NAPAs exceeded the
cumulative pledges and falls short of the estimate of $2 billion needed to achieve their key
adaptation priorities. In May 2014 the GEF Secretariat reported to Council
(GEF/LDCF.SCCF.16/04) that there were no resources available in the LDCF for new approvals
and $66.32 million were required for current proposals. The pipeline of technically cleared
projects and programs continued to grow until pledges were made by eleven donors at COP21
in Paris in November 2015. The $248 million in pledges will help but are not sufficient to fund
the more than $250 million pipeline of technically cleared implementation projects and
recently submitted proposals.
Millions
Figure 13: LDCF Cumulative Pledges Outstanding and Contributions Finalized

$1,000
$900
$800
$700
$600
$500
$400
$300
$200
$100
Mar-15
Jul-14
Nov-14
Mar-14
Nov-13
Jul-13
Nov-12
Mar-13
Jul-12
Mar-12
Nov-11
Jul-11
Mar-11
Nov-10
Jul-10
Mar-10
Nov-09
Jul-09
Mar-09
Nov-08
Jul-08
Mar-08
Jul-07
Nov-07
Mar-07
Nov-06
$0
Note: Based on the LDCF/SCCF Status Reports from November 2006 (GEF/LDCF/SCCF.1/Inf.2/Rev.1) up to the LDCF Financial
Report of September 2015 (GEF/LDCF.SCCF.19/Inf.02)
73.
The LDCF follows streamlined and simplified procedures to facilitate expedited access to
the Fund by the LDCs; projects are approved on a rolling basis and projects smaller than $2
million can be approved by the CEO in one step. To ensure sound financial management, the
LDCF follows the GEFs fiduciary standards, result-based frameworks, and monitoring and
evaluation practices. The LDCF also follows GEF operational policies except where the
LDCF/SCCF Council decides otherwise in response to COP guidance. Interviews with
representatives of GEF Agencies show that the agencies appreciate GEF reports to the COP
prepared by the GEF Secretariat, briefings provided on COP meetings, and guidance documents
such as the Accessing Resources under the LDCF booklet. GEFs Adaptation Task Force also
involves all GEF Agencies when issues such as programming of available funds and the LDCF
35
project pipeline are discussed by the GEF Secretariat. The procedures for accessing LDCF
resources have been simplified over time and all documents regarding the governance of the
LDCF are publicly available on the GEF website.
74.
A factor related to the unpredictability of funding affecting the Funds efficiency is the
transparency of the governance of the LDCF by the GEF. The unpredictability of funding in the
past two to three years has been a major challenge for LDCs who are dependent on LDCF
support for the implementation of their key climate change adaptation priorities. Interviews
with various stakeholders show that their perception of the Funds transparency has changed
since the funding crisis; a picture that was most pronounced when in-country representatives
of GEF Agencies and government focal points were interviewed. Projects that were technically
cleared more than a year ago have been waiting for funding and it is not always clear to the
country focal point and in-country GEF Agency representatives as to the status of project
funding. Country focal points and in-country GEF Agency representatives interviewed would
similarly appreciate more clarity regarding the outstanding LDCF balance for their country / the
country in which they work. Although the LDCF operates on a first-come first-served basis
there are transparency concerns regarding decisions on which projects would be financed and
in what order. This perception of a lack of transparency in the governance of the Funds
resources comes down to gaps in communication between the GEF Secretariat, GEF Agencies
and country focal points. The evaluation team did not find evidence of non-transparent
decisions being made by the GEF in relation to the management of LDCF funds.
75.
LDCFs resource unpredictability has been slowing down project preparation, approvals,
and implementation in support of LDCs climate change adaptation needs. The GEF Secretariat
encourages GEF Agencies to submit project identification forms (PIFs) but it is difficult for
agencies to plan resources if funding is unpredictable. For some GEF Agencies, especially the
multilateral development banks (MDBs), it can be a challenge to mobilize teams if the
availability of funding is questionable. Also, some countries and agencies have stopped
pursuing multi-trust fund projects because of the LDCFs resource unpredictability.
VII.
EMERGING RESULTS AND THEIR SUSTAINABILITY
76.
This section looks at the emerging results of LDCF support, and factors that affect the
sustainability of these emerging results. The following questions are addressed;
-
To what extent has LDCF support had a catalytic effect?
How does LDCF support relate to other GEF focal areas beyond climate change
adaptation?
What are the GEEW (Gender equality and the empowerment of women) objectives
(likely to be) achieved and gender mainstreaming principles adhered to by the LDCF?
To what extent are the emerging results of LDCF support sustainable?
36
Catalytic Effects of the LDCF

77.
The LDCF program evaluation looked at two different types of catalytic effects. First it
looked at the extent to which LDCF support to NAPA implementation projects has been
catalytic in one or more of the following ways:
a) Production of a public good: The project developed or introduced new technologies
and/or approaches. No significant actions were taken to build on this achievement, so
the catalytic effect is left to market forces.
b) Demonstration: After the production of a public good, demonstration sites, successful
information dissemination and/or training was implemented to further catalyze the new
technologies/approaches.
c) Replication: Activities, demonstrations, and/or techniques are repeated within or
outside the project.
d) Scaling-up: Approaches developed through the project are taken up on a regional/
national scale, becoming widely accepted.
This catalytic effect analysis focused on the 13 completed NAPA implementation projects
summarized in Table 15.
78.
Analysis of these projects with respect to the catalytic effects described above revealed
that most projects developed public goods and effectively demonstrated new technologies or
approaches (Figure 14, N=13). Close to half the projects also replicated activities,
demonstrations and/or techniques. But only two of the projects, in Samoa and Cambodia (GEF
IDs 3358 and 3404) performed well on scaling-up, with one project in Gambia (GEF ID 3728)
being moderately successful. Observations during field visits to Haiti and Lao PDR suggested
that extensive replication and upscaling beyond projects target districts or provinces generally
may not occur during project implementation. For the majority of projects that received low
ratings for scaling up, additional financing will be required to ensure scaling up. In most cases,
the technical and institutional capacity building and information sharing activities had good
buy-in from national and local-level officials. Each of these projects highlights further financing
as the primary requirement for scaling up.
37
Table 15: Overview of Completed LDCF Implementation Projects (MSP/FSP)

LDCF
funding
1
(M$)
Sustainability
3
rating
M&E design at
2
entry rating
M&E plan
implementation
2
rating
GEF
ID
AER
Agency
Project title
Country
2040
UNDP
Technical Assistance to Least Developed

Countries (LDCs) to Implement the
UNFCCC8/CP8 Decision
Global
0.69
No TE and TER rating available
2191
UNDP
Technical Assistance to Francophone

LDCs to Implement the UNFCCC8/CP8
Decision
Global
0.34
UNDP
Reducing Climate Change-induced Risks

and Vulnerabilities from Glacial Lake
Outbursts in the Punakha-Wangdi and
Chamkhar Valleys
Bhutan
3.99
HS
HS
Niger
3.80
ML
MU
3219
2013
Outcome
2
rating
3319
2014
UNDP
Implementing NAPA Priority

Interventions to Build Resilience and
Adaptive Capacity of the Agriculture
Sector to Climate Change
3358
2014
UNDP
Integrating Climate Change Risks into

the Agriculture and Health Sectors in
Samoa (ICCRAHS) Project
Samoa
2.25
MS
ML
MS
3404
2014
UNDP
Promoting Climate Resilient Water

Management and Agriculture Practice in
Rural Cambodia
Cambodia
2.14
ML
MS
UNDP

Interventions to Build Resilience in the
Agriculture and Water Sectors to the
Adverse Impacts of Climate Change
Sudan
3.74
MU
MU
MU
UNDP
Building Adaptive Capacity and

Resilience to Climate Change in the
Water Sector in Cabo Verde
Cabo Verde
3.41
MS
ML
3430
3581
2015
2014
38
Table 15 continued
Outcome
2
rating
Sustainability
3
rating
M&E design at
2
entry rating
M&E plan
implementation
2
rating
3.30
MU
MS
MS
Zambia
3.77
MU
Congo DR
3.41
ML
MU
UA
GEF
ID
AER
Agency
Project title
Country
3684
2014
UNDP
Strengthening Adaptation Capacities and

Reducing the Vulnerability to Climate
Change in Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso
3689
2015
UNDP
Adaptation to the effects of climate

variability and change in agro-ecological
regions I and II in Zambia (CCAP)
LDCF
funding
1
(M$)
3718
2015
UNDP
Building the Capacity of the Agriculture

Sector in DR Congo to Plan for and
Respond to the Additional Threats Posed
by Climate Change on Food Production
and Security
3728
2015
UNEP
Strengthening of The Gambias Climate

Change Early Warning Systems
Gambia
1.16
ML
MU
MU
UNDP /
UNEP
Reducing Vulnerability to Climate

Change by Establishing Early Warning
and Disaster Preparedness Systems and
Support for Integrated Watershed
Management in Flood Prone Areas
Rwanda
3.99
3838
2015
Total LDCF-related project funding, including PPG, Agency Fees and LDCF funding.
GEF/GEF Agency six-point rating scale: Highly Satisfactory (HS), Satisfactory (S), Moderately Satisfactory (MS), Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU), Unsatisfactory (U), and Highly
Unsatisfactory (HU).
3
GEF/GEF Agency four-point rating scale: Likely (L), Moderately Likely (ML), Moderately Unlikely (MU), and Unlikely (U). Alternatively, the rating might be Unable to Assess (UA).
39
Figure 14: Catalytic Effects of NAPA Implementation Projects

1. Public good
10
2. Demonstration
3. Replication
4. Scaling-up
Not Applicable
79.
A second analysis of catalytic effects carried out on completed projects (N=13) looked at
the following seven indicators of momentum and synergies generated by LDCF support in
relation to development programs and institutions, as identified by project stakeholders:
1. Projects generated significant social, economic, cultural and human well-being cobenefits.
2. Projects built on the traditional knowledge and practices of local communities.
3. Projects had impacts on multiple sectors and at different levels of society.
4. Projects built foundations for larger scale project(s) through analytic work, assessments
and capacity building.
5. Projects were instrumental in developing longer-term partnerships.
6. Projects were successful in developing new cost sharing approaches / leveraging new
resources.
7. Projects improved management effectiveness of adaptation-relevant (sub-)national
systems.
80.
The greatest catalytic effects achieved were in the generation of significant social,
economic, cultural and human well-being co-benefits (indicator 1); having impacts on multiple
sectors and at different levels of society (indicator 3), and the development of foundations for
larger scale project(s) through analytic work, assessments and capacity building (indicator 4).
Projects performed reasonably well on the development of longer-term partnerships (indicator
5) and improvements of management effectiveness of adaptation-relevant (sub-) national
systems (indicator 7). The evaluation found the projects to be less successful in developing new
cost sharing approaches and/or leveraging new financial resources (indicator 6). (Figure 15)
40
Figure 15: Catalytic Effects of NAPA Implementation Projects, as Identified by Stakeholders

1. Project generated significant social,
economic, cultural and human wellbeing co-benefits.
2. Project built on the traditional
knowledge and practices of local
communities.
3. The project had impact on multiple

sectors and at different levels of
society.
5. The project was instrumental in

developing longer-term partnerships.
6. Project was successful in developing

new cost sharing approaches /
leveraging new resources.
7. Project improved management

effectiveness of adaptation-relevant
(sub-)national systems.
4. Project built foundations for larger

scale project(s) through analytic work,
assessments and capacity building
activities.
Not Applicable
81.
An LDCF project in Niger (GEF ID 3319) for example, generated co-benefits through the
high labor intensity of the public works projects, which resulted in poverty reduction, enhanced
food security and greater access to water. Co-benefits identified in a Rwanda project (GEF ID
3838) related to the no regrets approach to addressing climate change through the provision
of climate information that facilitates community leaders and district disaster management
committees in their decision making, helping to avoid mal-adaptive decisions. A conservation
agriculture approach introduced in Zambia (GEF ID 3689) raised farmers incomes, which
contributed to an increase in payments for childrens education, increased social status for
women and reduced discrimination. Projects that adopted a multi-sector approach also built
foundations for larger scale projects. For example, the Samoan project (GEF ID 3358)
strengthened cross-sectorial collaboration and built the foundation for climate early warning
system application in subsequent NAPA sectorial implementation projects. Lessons learned
from the project considered in Bhutan (GEF ID 3219) have already been applied to that
41
countrys Disaster Management Act, passed in 2013, which will guide further actions in disaster
risk management.
82.
LDCF support was generally catalytic for the thirteen projects reviewed; projects
demonstrated and disseminated, resulting in activities, demonstrations, and/or techniques
being repeated within or outside the project. The majority of projects which received low
ratings for scaling up, the final element of being catalytic, had a financial sustainability rating in
the likely range, though at the same time all discuss a lack of assured financing into future
phases of project implementation as an issue. Projects were less successful in developing new
cost sharing approaches and/or leveraging new financial resources.
LDCF Support in Relation to Other GEF Focal Areas
83.
The GEF programming strategy on adaptation aims to expand synergies between
climate change adaptation and other GEF focal areas, in order to realize both the adaptation
and global environmental benefits delivered by interventions financed under the LDCF, the
SCCF and the GEF Trust Fund.34 One of the GEF adaptation strategic pillars as part of the
programming strategy on adaptation is Expanding synergies with other GEF focal areas.
84.
The first question asked by the evaluation was whether interventions receiving LDCF
support contribute to focal areas other than climate change. Almost all (94%) NAPA country
reports (EAs) called for contributions to at least one other focal area, mostly to the biodiversity
and land degradation focal areas (Table 6). Meanwhile, 58 percent of NAPA implementation
projects contributes to controlling land degradation, while 46 percent contributes to
biodiversity protection (Table 7). Close to one third of these projects contribute only to the
programs core climate change focal area. Of these, 17 focus specifically on capacity
development, either linked to a specific UNFCCC decision or a specific sector like health, water
or agriculture. Twelve of them focus on the development and implementation of early warning
systems and the collection of hydro-meteorological data.
85.
A second evaluation question was whether interventions receiving LDCF support were
aligned with GEFs strategic pillars of the GEF strategy on adaptation. All NAPA implementation
projects align to some extent with the first pillar of integrating CCA in relevant policies, plans,
programs and decision-making processes, and 89 percent of the projects does so from a large
to an extremely large extent (Figure 9). Ninety-five percent of the projects aligns to some
extent with the second GEF adaptation strategic pillar of expanding synergies with other GEF
focal areas. Furthermore, 64 percent of the NAPA implementation projects does so from a large
to an extremely large extent.
34
GEF, GEF Programming Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change for the Least Developed Countries Fund and
the Special Climate Change Fund, May 05, 2014. Council Document GEF/LDCF.SCCF.16/03/Rev.01.
42
86.
LDCF supported interventions contribute to focal areas other than the climate change
focal area. It is not within the Funds mandate to explicitly target focal areas beyond climate
change. However, it is clear that with agriculture, water resource management and fragile
ecosystems identified as primary priority areas, there are likely to be beneficial synergies with
the biodiversity and land degradation focal areas.
87.
A third evaluation question related to LDCF contributions to global environmental
benefits (GEBs). It should be noted that within the portfolio of 217 projects considered, only 11
were registered as multi-focal area, which are by their nature expected to contribute to the
GEBs. The evaluation assessed the extent to which implementation projects appeared likely to
contribute to the following six global environmental benefits: 35
1. Maintain globally significant biodiversity and the ecosystem goods and services that it
provides to society.
2. Sustainable land management in production systems, i.e. agriculture, rangelands, and
forest landscapes.
3. Promotion of collective management of transboundary water systems and
implementation of the full range of policy, legal, and institutional reforms and
investments contributing to sustainable use and maintenance of ecosystem services.
4. Support to transformational shifts towards a low-emission and resilient development
path.
5. Increase in phase-out, disposal and reduction of releases of POPs, ODS, mercury and
other chemicals of global concern.
6. Enhance capacity of countries to implement MEAs (multilateral environmental
agreements) and mainstream MEAs into national and sub-national policy, planning,
financial and legal frameworks.
88.
Projects were rated in the from a large to an extremely large extent range for
alignment with GEBs if they included numerical targets towards the GEBs being assessed.
Projects were rated moderately aligned if they did not include numerical targets, but
expressed an intent to add these in future project documentation. Projects could score in the
from a small to an extremely small extent range if they showed clear intent to contribute, but
did not provide information on targets.
89.
About one third (30.9 percent) of NAPA implementation projects intentionally
contributes to the protection of biodiversity and ecosystems, while close to half (46.1 percent)
intentionally contributes to sustainable land management. Almost a quarter of the projects
(23.5 percent) intentionally contributes to multilateral environmental agreements and their
35
GEF, Report on the Sixth Replenishment of the GEF Trust Fund, May 22, 2014. Assembly document
GEF/A.5/07/Rev.01, Corporate Results Framework, Table 2, p.16.
43
mainstreaming into national and sub-national policy, planning, financial and legal frameworks.
NAPA implementation projects provide the least support in the area of chemicals POPs, ODS
and mercury. A relatively low level of support to collective management of transboundary
water systems is due to those projects focusing on water resource management not having a
transboundary component. The low score on (4) transformational shifts towards a lowemission and resilient development path is the result of most CCA projects not being focused
on lowering emissions or other mitigation measures (Figure 16).
Figure 16: Potential Contribution of NAPA Implementation Projects to Global Environmental
Benefits (GEBs)
1. Maintain globally significant biodiversity and the
ecosystem goods and services that it provides to
society.
2. Sustainable land management in production

systems, i.e. agriculture, rangelands, and forest
landscapes.
3. Promotion of collective management of
transboundary water systems and implementation of
the full range of policy, legal, and institutional reforms
and investments contributing to sustainable use and
maintenance of ecosystem services.
4. Support to transformational shifts towards a lowemission and resilient development path.
5. Increase in phase-out, disposal and reduction of

releases of POPs, ODS, mercury and other chemicals
of global concern.
6. Enhance capacity of countries to implement MEAs
(multilateral environmental agreements) and
mainstream MEAs into national and sub-national
policy, planning, financial and legal frameworks.
13.4%
27.6%
17.5%
30.9%
15.2%
23.0%
4.1%
21.7%
4.1%
2.3%
1.8%
16.6%
0.9% 4.1%
12.4%
11.1%
36.4%
Not Applicable
44
41.5%
30.9%
70.0%
79.3%
94.9%
40.1%
Gender Equality and Womens Empowerment Objectives

90.
The 2009 joint evaluation of the LDCF concluded that the UNFCCC has so far failed to
address how gender issues will be effectively addressed in NAPA guidelines. The NAPA
guidelines [] do not provide a structured framework on addressing pressing and priority issues
of women as one of the most vulnerable to climate change impacts and how to best integrate
gender approaches into NAPA process. 36 Subsequently, consistent with the GEFs operational
policies and procedures on gender mainstreaming, LDCF implementation projects began to
apply GEFs five core gender indicators (Annex 6) from October 2014 onward. The ResultsBased Management (RBM) Framework Adaptation Monitoring and Assessment Tool (AMAT)
has recently been updated 37 to include GEF's core gender indicators in accordance with the
GEFs Gender Equality Action Plan (GEAP), though the RBM framework and AMAT already
included gender-disaggregated indicators since the AMATs introduction in October 2010. 38
91.
A gender assessment took place as part of the portfolio analysis. It focused first on
whether or not a gender mainstreaming strategy or plan was included in the NAPA project
documentation. There were differences in interpretation regarding what it means for a project
to be gender mainstreamed. The FY 2014 AMR (GEF/LDCF.SCCF.18/04, p.25) talks, for
example, about 47 percent of the projects analyzed providing strong evidence of gender
mainstreaming against one or more of the indicators, introduced in the updated results-based
management framework for adaptation to climate change. To avoid confusion, we have
followed the gender mainstreaming definition of GEFs Gender Equality Action Plan (GEAP)
(GEF/C.47/09.Rev.01, 2014). This states that Mainstreaming involves ensuring that gender
perspectives and attention to the goal of gender equality are central to all activities, and it
[Gender mainstreaming] is a strategy for making the concerns and experiences of women as
well as of men an integral part of the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of
policies and programs in all political, economic and societal spheres, so that women and men
benefit equally, and inequality is not perpetuated (p.7). It was decided however to relax the
gender mainstreaming definition somewhat in the gender assessment and to aim for gender
perspectives and gender equality being central to most, if not all, activities rather than all
activities.
92.
According to these definitions, 29 percent of the NAPA implementation projects
included a gender mainstreaming strategy or plan, and 47.5 percent gave strong indications
that the development of such a strategy or plan was in progress (Table 16, N=217). 23.5 percent
36
DANIDA / IEO, Joint External Evaluation: Operation of the Least Developed Countries Fund for Adaptation to
Climate Change. October 13 2009, page 46.
37
GEF, Updated Results-Based Management Framework for Adaptation to Climate Change under the Least
Developed Countries Fund and the Special Climate Change Fund, October 2014. Council document
GEF/LDCF.SCCF.17/05/Rev.01.
38
GEF, Updated Results-Based Management Framework for the Least Developed Countries Fund and the Special
Climate Change Fund and Adaptation Monitoring and Assessment Tracking Tool, November 2010. Council
Document GEF/LDCF.SCCF.9/Inf.4.
45
of the implementation projects assessed did not include a gender mainstreaming strategy or
plan. It is important to note that these figures include projects designed throughout the GEF
replenishment phases, which includes those that predated GEFs gender policy (Policy:
SD/PL/02, 2012) and Gender Equality Action Plan (GEAP) (GEF/C.47/09.Rev.01, 2014). When
considering only GEF-6, over 90 percent of the projects either includes or gives strong
indication that the development of a gender mainstreaming strategy or plan is taking place.
Table 16: Inclusion of a Gender Mainstreaming Strategy or Plan by GEF Replenishment Phase
GEF-3
Yes
No, but its/their
development is implied
No
Total by phase:
1
GEF-4
GEF-5
GEF-6
Total
8.1%
44
33.3%
16
34.8%
63
29.0%
16
43.2%
61
46.2%
26
56.5%
103
47.5%
100.0%
18
48.6%
27
20.5%
8.7%
51
23.5%
100.0%
37
100.0%
132
100.0%
46
100.0%
217
100.0%
Percentages per rating are towards the total for each phase.
93.
A second part of the gender assessment looked at the inclusion of a gender responsive
results framework, including gender disaggregated indicators (Table 17, N=217). The totals for
the entire portfolio show that over 31.3 percent of the projects includes a gender responsive
results framework, while for over 45 percent, the development of a gender responsive results
framework is implied. When looking at the GEF-6 replenishment phase, only 10.9 percent of
projects assessed include a gender responsive results framework. This low score comes down
to the results frameworks not having been fully developed for projects that are in early stages
of development.
Table 17: Inclusion of a Gender Responsive Results Framework, Including Gender
Disaggregated Indicators, by GEF Replenishment Phase
GEF-3
Yes
No, but its/their
No
Total by phase:
1
GEF-4
GEF-5
GEF-6
Total
18.9%
56
42.4%
10.9%
68
31.3%
17
45.9%
51
38.6%
31
67.4%
99
45.6%
100.0%
13
35.1%
25
18.9%
10
21.7%
50
23.0%
100.0%
37
100.0%
132
100.0%
46
100.0%
217
100.0%
Percentages per rating are towards the total for each phase.
94.
46
95.
A final part of the gender analysis further focused on the ultimate goal of
mainstreaming. The evaluators developed a new gender rating, which takes gender
mainstreaming as the goal for projects, but has added an even higher goal of being gender
transformative to identify those projects that go beyond gender mainstreaming and could be
an example to others when it comes to gender. The reviewer provided a gender rating for NAPA
implementation projects as follows:
-
Gender-blind: Project does not demonstrate awareness of the set of roles, rights,
responsibilities, and power relations associated with being male or female.
Gender-aware: Project recognizes the economic / social / political roles, rights,

entitlements, responsibilities, obligations and power relations socially assigned to men
and women, but might work around existing gender differences and inequalities or does
not sufficiently show how it addresses gender differences and promotes gender
equalities.
Gender-sensitive: Project adopts gender sensitive methodologies (a gender analysis is

undertaken, gender disaggregated data are collected, gender sensitive indicators are
integrated in monitoring and evaluation) to address gender differences and promote
gender equality.
Gender-mainstreamed: Project ensures that gender perspectives and attention to the

goal of gender equality are central to most, if not all, activities. It assesses the
implications for women and men of any planned action, including legislation, policies or
programs, in any area and at all levels.
Gender-transformative: Project goes beyond gender-mainstreaming and facilitates a

critical examination' of gender norms, roles, and relationships; strengthens or creates
systems that support gender equity; and/or questions and changes gender norms and
dynamics.
Not gender-relevant: Gender plays no role in the planned intervention.
The gender rating is further explained in Annex 4.

96.
The gender assessment shows that close to 14 percent of all NAPA implementation
projects is gender mainstreamed, while almost 50 percent is gender sensitive and over 32
percent of implementation projects is gender aware (Table 18, N=217). An important
development is that under GEF-6 none of the projects are rated gender blind or not gender
relevant.
97.
The majority of implementation projects rated gender aware have (or had) the intent to
incorporate gender considerations in project activities, but lacked gender disaggregated
indicators or other gender specific types of analyses needed to label it gender sensitive or
gender mainstreamed. Projects that are rated gender sensitive often cover the first part of the
gender mainstreamed definition in that they ensure that gender perspectives and attention to
the goal of gender equality are central to most, if not all, activities. However, the assessment of
47
the implications for women and men of planned actions is often lacking. For example, in a
Zambian project (GEF ID 3689), the participation and empowerment of women farmers was
evident. However, there was insufficient time and resources to further analyze who these
women were, and whether the intervention made a difference in their lives. It did not consider
key questions such as: Were they single heads of households? Were they cultivating their own
land or land allotted to them by their husbands, or by others? Were they able to keep the full
proceeds of their own labor?
Table 18: Overall Assessment of NAPA Implementation Projects' Inclusion of the Gender
Component, by GEF Replenishment Phase1
GEF-3
GEF-4
GEF-5
GEF-6
Gender blind
16.2%
6.1%
Gender aware
13
35.1%
43
32.6%
15
Gender sensitive
17
45.9%
59
44.7%
Gender mainstreamed
2.7%
21
15.9%
0.8%
Gender transformative
Not gender relevant
Total by phase:
1
100.0%
100.0%
37
100.0%
132
100.0%
Total
14
6.5%
32.6%
71
32.7%
23
50.0%
99
45.6%
17.4%
30
13.8%
0.5%
0.9%
217
100.0%
46
100.0%
Percentages per rating are towards the total of the phase.
98.
Common features shared by implementation projects that were rated gender
mainstreamed were womens involvement in activities for which they are the primary
beneficiaries or decision-makers, the inclusion of gender disaggregated indicators and targets,
and the availability of a gender mainstreaming strategy or plan preferably designed by or with
the women it addresses. Other features are equal gender representation in project
beneficiaries and staff, and women in project leadership roles. A CEO endorsed project in
Uganda (GEF ID 5603 - UNIDO) is the only project rated gender transformative, because it
performed an extensive gender impact analysis as part of the PPG phase, identified alarming
inequalities, and aims to mainstream gender equality in Ugandas national development
policies to further enhance the national gender equality agenda. An ongoing project in Benin
(GEF ID 5232 - AfDB) was rated gender mainstreamed, but came close to a gender
transformative rating. The project prioritizes rural activities valued by women (market
gardening, rice farming, processing, marketing, etc.) and from which they can generate income.
The project specifically focuses on womens access to newly developed public goods and it
actively encourages and supports women to assume leadership roles.
The Sustainability of Emerging Results
99.
The assessment of the sustainability of project outcomes focused on completed projects
(MSP/FSP) for which terminal evaluations (TEs) and terminal evaluation reviews (TERs) were
48
available (Table 15, N=11). The quality at entry review - discussed in Chapter VI - assessed
projects that were CEO endorsed / approved or under implementation (N=116), and it showed
that over 98 percent of NAPA implementation projects had a high to very high probability of
delivering tangible adaptation benefits. Sustainability is defined, in line with the Annual
Performance Reviews (APRs), as the likelihood of continuation of those project benefits after
completion of project implementation. To assess sustainability, the terminal evaluation
reviewer assessed key risks that could undermine continuation of benefits at the time of the
evaluation. The following four types of risk factors are taken into account to rate the likelihood
of sustainability of project outcomes beyond the projects timeframe: financial, sociopolitical,
institutional frameworks and governance, and environmental.
100. In terms of sustainability of project outcomes, eight of the eleven completed projects
for which TERs were available received ratings in the likely range. Two completed projects in
Bhutan and Rwanda were rated likely sustainable (GEF IDs 3219 and 3838), while six national
projects in Niger, Samoa, Cambodia, Cabo Verde, Congo DR and Gambia (GEF IDs 3319, 3358,
3404, 3581, 3718 and 3728) got a moderately likely rating for the sustainability of project
outcomes.
101. For six of these eight completed projects (GEF IDs 3219, 3358, 3581, 3718, 3728 and
3838) that received sustainability ratings in the likely range, the main area of potential concern
is financial sustainability of projects activities beyond the scope of project-related funding.
Despite receiving moderately likely or likely financial sustainability ratings, the projects all
discuss a lack of assured financing into future phases of project implementation as an issue. TEs
recommend that projects identify and implement self-funding mechanisms in order to move
beyond the need for project-specific funding, which is not assured into the future.
102. Apart from financial sustainability, two other issues raised repeatedly in TEs relate to
integrating climate change adaptation with national policies and programs (institutional
sustainability), and, related, the need for country ownership to ensure sustainability
(sociopolitical sustainability). The TE of the Samoa project (GEF ID 3358), for example, states
that integrating CCA with national policies, programs and relevant sector plans could ensure
country ownership of sustainability, and increases the chances that the projects financing
becomes a national, sectorial or local-level priority. However, it should be clearly stated that
the mainstreaming analysis focused on the self-identification of mainstreaming as described in
the NAPA country reports and in project documentation of NAPA implementation projects. The
analysis did not include the reviewing of the national development plans and policies of the 51
LDCs.
103. Three of the eleven completed projects, in Sudan, Burkina Faso and Zambia (GEF IDs
3430, 3684 and 3689), received a moderately unlikely rating for the sustainability of project
outcomes. TEs indicate that the lower sustainability rating was not due to one specific criterion,
but projects had multiple weaknesses contributing to a low sustainability rating. For example,
issues related to project funding (financial sustainability), country ownership (socio-political
sustainability), and institutional sustainability were identified for the Burkina Faso project (GEF
49
ID 3684). The TE concludes that given the very challenging context, the project was as
successful as could be expected (p. 11).
104. A cohort of thirteen completed projects (MSP/FSP), eleven of them with terminal
evaluations (TEs) and terminal evaluation reviews (TERs), is too small to draw Fund-wide
conclusions. Field visit data from Cambodia, Haiti, Lao PDR and Senegal also illustrates that for
most NAPA implementation projects it is still too early to assess the sustainability of LDCF
support. In Senegal, the limited results thus far appear highly sustainable; potentially due to the
highly participatory methodology promoting progressive ownership of activities by community
groups and use of highly experienced internal experts. The data from the Cambodia field visit
points toward a role for private sector involvement and value chain perspectives to move
beyond project-related funding and increase the potential for financial sustainability. Results
from the data of the Lao PDR field visit are cautiously optimistic about the sustainability of
project outcomes, but state it will largely depend on successfully transferring project ownership
to local stakeholders.
VII.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
105. In its evaluation of the LDCF, the Independent Evaluation Office of the GEF reached the
following 8 conclusions:
Conclusion 1: LDCF supported activities, for the most part, have been highly relevant to COP
guidance, and countries development priorities. There is a generally high degree of coherence
between the scope of LDCF funded activities and both the guidance and priorities of the
UNFCCC and the GEF, and the development priorities of countries receiving LDCF support.
Conclusion 2: LDCF supported interventions show clear potential in reaching the GEFs three
adaptation strategic objectives. Eighty-eight percent of NAPA country reports (EAs), and 90
percent of implementation projects (MSP/FSP) were from a large to an extremely large extent
aligned with the GEF adaptation strategic objectives. The quality at entry review showed that
98 percent of NAPA implementation projects had a high to very high probability of delivering
tangible adaptation benefits. Also the majority of stakeholders interviewed indicated it was
very likely that the NAPA implementation projects they were familiar with, or involved in,
would reach the GEFs strategic adaptation objectives.
Conclusion 3: Contributions of LDCF supported interventions to focal areas other than climate
change are potentially significant. It is not within the Funds mandate to explicitly target focal
areas beyond climate change, but given the primary priority areas for LDCF support
agriculture, water resource management and fragile ecosystems there is clear potential for
beneficial synergies with the biodiversity and land degradation focal areas in particular. The
Funds support also has the potential to contribute to some extent to GEFs global
50
environmental benefits, most notably on maintaining globally significant biodiversity and

sustainable land management in production systems.
Conclusion 4: The efficiency of the LDCF has been negatively impacted by the unpredictability
of available resources. Despite employing measures to expedite the project cycle the LDCFs
efficiency has experienced negative effects from the unpredictable nature of available
resources. There is no formal resource mobilization process and the Fund has to rely on
voluntary contributions. Unpredictable funding creates uncertainty for GEF Agencies and least
developed countries reliant on LDCF support for the implementation of their primary climate
change adaptation priorities. It also negatively influences stakeholders perception of the
Funds transparency and overall impacts LDCFs efficiency.
Conclusion 5: LDCF support to NAPA implementation projects has resulted in catalytic effects
in completed projects, though extensive replication and upscaling generally demands further
financing beyond the projects timeframe. Completed NAPA implementation projects
demonstrated and disseminated, and resulted in activities, demonstrations, and/or techniques
being repeated within and outside of these projects. Additional catalytic effects, as identified by
project stakeholders, were (1) in the generation of significant social, economic, cultural and
human well-being co-benefits as a result of NAPA project implementation, (2) the projects
having impacts on multiple sectors and at different levels of society, and (3) the projects
resulting in the development of foundations for larger scale projects through analytic work,
assessments and capacity building. Only 15 percent of completed projects performed well on
upscaling. For the majority of projects which received low performance ratings for scaling up,
additional financing will be required to ensure scaling up. The technical and institutional
capacity building and information sharing activities had good buy-in from national and locallevel officials, but projects highlight further financing beyond the projects timeframe as the
primary requirement for scaling up.
Conclusion 6: There is a clear intent to mainstream adaptation into countries environmental
and sustainable development policies, plans and associated processes. The portfolio analysis
found that almost three quarters of NAPA country reports clearly detailed the ways in which
NAPA priorities would be linked with existing national policies, plans and strategies.
Conclusion 7: The gender performance of the LDCF portfolio has improved considerably in
response to enhanced requirements from the GEF, though there seems to be confusion as to
what it means to be gender mainstreamed. Almost 50 percent of projects under GEF-4 lacked
a gender mainstreaming strategy or plan, which went down to 8.7 percent under GEF-6. Over
90 percent of NAPA implementation projects financed under GEF-6 address gender concerns to
some degree. However, this evaluation rated only 17.4 percent of these projects as gender
mainstreamed; more projects need to move from the gender aware and gender sensitive
categories to the gender mainstreamed rating. The Gender Equality Action Plan clearly
explains what it means for a project to be gender mainstreamed. Some other council
51
documents, more specifically the AMR, show a different interpretation regarding gender
mainstreaming.
Conclusion 8: There are significant discrepancies in project data from the GEF Secretariats
Project Management Information System (PMIS). A quality assessment of PMIS information
was not a specific objective of this evaluation, but project data harvesting from PMIS revealed
58 broken links to project documentation for 46 projects. Moreover, the cross-checking of the
available project data with GEF agencies revealed further discrepancies in the data coming from
the Project Management Information System.
Recommendations
106. In its evaluation of the LDCF, the Independent Evaluation Office of the GEF reached the
following 3 recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The GEF Secretariat should explore and develop mechanisms that ensure
the predictable, adequate and sustainable financing of the Fund.
Recommendation 2: The GEF Secretariat should make efforts to improve consistency
regarding their understanding and application of the GEF gender mainstreaming policy and
the Gender Equality Action Plan (GEAP) to the LDCF.
Recommendation 3: The GEF Secretariat should ensure that the data in the Project
Management Information System is up to date and accurate.
52
20th LDCF/SCCF Council Meeting

June 09, 2016
Washington, D.C.
PROGRAM EVALUATION OF THE LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES FUND

(Prepared by Independent Evaluation Office of the GEF)
Part 2 Annexes
CONTENTS
List of Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... 2
References ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Annex 1: Overview of NAPA Country Reports (EAs) ....................................................................... 9
Annex 2: Results Framework of the GEF Adaptation Program ..................................................... 12
Annex 3: Evaluation Matrix ........................................................................................................... 14
Annex 4: Portfolio Analysis Protocol............................................................................................. 18
4.1 Overview of Questions ........................................................................................................ 19
4.2 Explanation of Ratings Used ................................................................................................ 28
4.3 Results for the NAPA Country Reports (Enabling Activities) ............................................... 37
4.4 Results for the NAPA Implementation Projects .................................................................. 42
Annex 5: Overview of Interviewees .............................................................................................. 61
Annex 6: Core Gender Indicators .................................................................................................. 69
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ADB
Asian Development Bank
AF
Adaptation Fund
AfDB
African Development Bank
AMAT
Adaptation Monitoring and Assessment Tool
CCA
Climate change adaptation
CEO
Chief Executive Officer
CI
Conservation International
COP
Conference of the Parties
DANIDA
Danish International Development Assistance
DBSA
Development Bank of Southern Africa
DDP
District development plan
EA
Enabling Activity
EBRD
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
EWS
Early warning system
FAO
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations
FSP
Full Size Project
GCF
Green Climate Fund
GEAP
Gender Equality Action Plan
GEB
Global environmental benefit
GEEW
Gender equality and the empowerment of women
GEF
Global Environment Facility
IEO
Independent Evaluation Office (of the GEF)
GLOF
Glacial lake outburst flood
IA
Implementing agency
IDB
Inter-American Development Bank
IFAD
International Fund for Agricultural Development
INC
Initial National Communication
IUCN
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
LDC
Least Developed Country
LDCF
Least Developed Countries Fund

2
LEG
Least Developed Countries Expert Group
MFA
Multi-focal area
MSP
Medium Size Project
MTF
Multi-trust fund
NAP
National Adaptation Plan
NAPA
National Adaptation Programme of Action
NRM
Natural resource management
ODA
Official development assistance
ODS
Ozone Depleting Substances
OPS
Overall Performance Study
PIF
Project Identification Form
PIR
Project Implementation Report
POP
Persistent Organic Pollutants
RBM
Results-based management
SCCF
Special Climate Change Fund
SIDS
Small island developing states
SNC
Second National Communication
SPA
Strategic Priority on Adaptation
TE
Terminal evaluation
TER
Terminal evaluation review
TNC
Third National Communication
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
UNFCCC
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UNIDO
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
WWF-US
United States World Wildlife Fund
REFERENCES
The GEF and LDCF/SCCF Council documents cited here (indicated with the designation
GEF/C.xx and GEF/LDCF.SCCF.xx) are available on the GEF Web site, www.theGEF.org, under
Documents/Council Documents. GEF Evaluation Office documents can be found on the GEF
Evaluation Office Web site, www.gefeo.org, under Publications.
Evaluation Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark (DANIDA EVAL). 2009. Joint
External Evaluation: Operation of the Least Developed Countries Fund for Adaptation to
Climate Change. October 13, 2009. In collaboration with the Independent Evaluation Office
(IEO) of the GEF. Available from: https://www.thegef.org/gef/Program%20Evaluation%20%20Joint%20Evaluation%20of%20the%20LDCF
. 2010. Follow up to the LDCF Evaluation (Prepared by DANIDA). October 2010.
GEF/LDCF.SCCF.9/Inf.7. Available from: https://www.thegef.org/gef/node/3762
Global Environment Facility (GEF). 2006. Status Report on the Climate Change Funds.
November 2006. GEF/LDCF.SCCF.1/Inf.2/Rev.1. Available from:
https://www.thegef.org/gef/node/380
. 2010. Report on Actions Undertaken in Response and Follow Up to Joint External
Evaluation: Operation of the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) for Adaptation to Climate
Change. October 2010. GEF/LDCF.SCCF.9/Inf.6. Available from:
. 2010. Updated Results-Based Management Framework for the Least Developed
Countries Fund and the Special Climate Change Fund and Adaptation Monitoring and
Assessment Tracking Tool. November 2010. GEF/LDCF.SCCF.9/Inf.4. Available from:
https://www.thegef.org/gef/CC_adaptation_tracking_tool
. 2011. Accessing Resources under the Least Developed Countries Fund. May 2011.
ISBN: 978-1-939339-16-4. Available from: https://www.thegef.org/gef/node/4433
. 2011. Progress Report on the Implementation of the Adaptation Results Based
Management for LDCF and SCCF and the Adaptation Tracking and Assessment Tool (AMAT).
October 2011. GEF/LDCF.SCCF.11/Inf.03. Available from:
https://www.thegef.org/gef/content/progress-report-implementation-adaptation-resultsbased-management-ldcf-and-sccf-and-adaptat
. 2012. Policy on Gender Mainstreaming. May 2012. GEF/PL/SD/02. Available from:
https://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/document/Gender_Mainstreami
ng_Policy-2012.pdf
. 2012. Policy on Public Involvement in GEF Projects. August 2012. GEF/PL/SD/01.
Available from: https://www.thegef.org/gef/content/public-involvement-policy
. 2012. Progress Report for the Least Developed Countries Fund and the Special Climate
Change Fund. October 2012. GEF/LDCF.SCCF.13/Inf.02. Available from:
https://www.thegef.org/gef/council_document/progress-report-least-developed-countriesfund-and-special-climate-change-fund-0
Change Fund. October 2013. GEF/LDCF.SCCF.15/03. Available from:
. 2014. GEF Programming Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change for the Least
Developed Countries Fund and the Special Climate Change Fund. May 2014.
GEF/LDCF.SCCF.16/03/Rev.01. Available from: https://www.thegef.org/gef/node/10516
. 2014. Gender Equality Action Plan (GEAP). October 2014. GEF/C.47/09/Rev.01.
Available from: https://www.thegef.org/gef/node/10935
Change Fund. May 2014. GEF/LDCF.SCCF.16/04. Available from:
Change Fund. October 2014. GEF/LDCF.SCCF.17/03. Available from:
. 2014. Report on the Sixth Replenishment of the GEF Trust Fund. May 2014. Assembly
document GEF/A.5/07/Rev.01. Available from: https://www.thegef.org/gef/node/10541
. 2014. Updated Results-Based Management Framework for Adaptation to Climate
Change under the Least Developed Countries Fund and the Special Climate Change Fund.
October 2014. GEF/LDCF.SCCF.17/05/Rev.01. Available from:
. 2015. FY 14 Annual Monitoring Review of the Least Developed Countries Fund and the
Special Climate Change Fund. May 2015. GEF/LDCF.SCCF.18/04. Available from:
. 2015. Least Developed Countries Fund Financial Report. October 2015.
GEF/LDCF.SCCF.19/Inf.02. Available from: https://www.thegef.org/gef/node/11465
. 2015. Press Release: $248 USD million pledged to GEF climate fund for most
vulnerable countries. November 2015. Available from:
. 2015. Progress Report on the Least Developed Countries Fund and the Special Climate
Change Fund. September 25 2015. GEF/LDCF.SCCF.19/03. Available from:
5
Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) of the GEF. 2009. Executive Summary of the Joint External
Evaluation: Operation of the Least Developed Countries Fund for Adaptation to Climate
Change. October 2009. GEF/LDCF.SCCF.7/5. Available from:
. 2010. The GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Policy 2010. November 2010. Available
from: https://www.thegef.org/gef/Evaluation%20Policy%202010
. 2011. Evaluation of the GEF Strategic Priority for Adaptation (SPA). Evaluation Report
No. 61, July 2011. Available from: https://www.thegef.org/gef/Program%20Evaluation%20%20SPA
. 2012. Evaluation of the GEF Focal Area Strategies Technical Paper 7: Climate Change
Adaptation under LDCF and SCCF. November 2012. Available from:
https://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/FAS_TechnicalPaper7_CCA_5No
v12.pdf
. 2012. Evaluation of the GEF Focal Area Strategies Technical Paper 8: Collection of
COP Guidance to the GEF for the Four Conventions the GEF Serves as a Financial Mechanism.
November 2012. Available from:
https://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/FAS_TechnicalPaper8_Guidance
%20Review_5Nov12.pdf
. 2013. Evaluation of the GEF Focal Area Strategies - Evaluation Report 78. January
2013. Available from: https://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/FAS.pdf
. 2013. OPS5 Technical Document 3: Implementation of GEF Focal Area Strategies and
Trends in Focal Area Achievements. March 2013. Available from:
https://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/EO/TD3_Implementation%20of%20GEF%20F
ocal%20Area%20Strategies%20and%20Trends%20in%20Focal%20Area%20Achievements.pdf
. 2013. OPS5 Technical Document 9: Multi Focal Area Projects in GEF Portfolio.
November 2013. Available from:
https://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/EO/TD9_Multi%20Focal%20Area%20Project
s%20in%20GEF%20Portfolio.pdf
. 2013. OPS5 Technical Document 19: Adaptation to Climate Change. November 2013.
Available from:
https://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/EO/TD19_Adaptation%20to%20Climate%20
Change.pdf
. 2014. The Fifth Overall Performance Study (OPS5). May 2014. Available from:
https://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/OPS5-Final-Report-EN.pdf
. 2014. The Least Developed Countries Fund: Review of the Implementation of NAPAs.
Unedited Version. April 2014. Available from:
6
https://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/LDCF%20Implementation%20of
%20NAPA.pdf
. 2015. Four-Year Work Program and Budget for the GEF Independent Evaluation Office
under the LDCF and SCCF. June 2015. GEF/LDCF.SCCF.18/ME/01/Rev.01. Available from:
. 2016. Program Evaluation Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) 2016 Approach
Paper, Audit Trail and Annexes. May 2016. Available from: https://www.thegef.org/gef/LDCF2016
IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, IPCC Working Group
II Contribution to AR5, Glossary. October 2014. Available from: https://ipccwg2.gov/AR5/report/full-report/
OECD DAC. 2010. Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management. Paris,
France: OECD DAC. Available from: http://www.oecd.org/dac/2754804.pdf
Patton, M.Q. 2008. Utilization-Focused Evaluation: The New Century Text. 4th Edition.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2009. Evaluation of UNDP Work with Least
Developed Countries Fund and Special Climate Change Fund Resources. UNDP Evaluation
Office. Available from: http://web.undp.org/evaluation/documents/thematic/ldcf/LDCFSCCF_Evaluation.pdf
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2008. Terminal Evaluation of the UNEP GEF
Projects Enabling Activities for the Preparation of a National Adaptation Programme of Action
(NAPA). Available from:
http://www.unep.org/eou/Portals/52/Reports/NAPA_Final_Report.pdf
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2001. II. The Marrakesh
Accords Decision 2/CP.7 Capacity building in developing countries (non-Annex I Parties).
UNFCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1 Decision 2/CP.7. Available from:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop7/13a01.pdf
. 2001. II. The Marrakesh Accords Decision 5/CP.7 Implementation of Article 4,
paragraphs 8 and 9, of the Convention (decision 3/CP.3 and Article 2, paragraph 3, and Article 3,
paragraph 14, of the Kyoto Protocol). UNFCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1 Decision 5/CP.7. Available
from: https://unfccc.int/files/cooperation_and_support/ldc/application/pdf/13a01p32.pdf
. 2001. II. The Marrakesh Accords Decision 7/CP.7 Funding under the Convention.
UNFCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1 Decision 7/CP.7. Available from:
https://unfccc.int/files/cooperation_and_support/financial_mechanism/application/pdf/7_cp.7
.pdf
. 2002. Decision 8/CP.8 Guidance to an entity entrusted with the operation of the
financial mechanism of the Convention for the operation of the Least Developed Countries
Fund. UNFCCC/CP/2002/7/Add.1, Decision 8/CP.8. Available from:
. 2003. Decision 4/CP.9 Report of the Global Environment Facility to the Conference of
the Parties. UNFCCC/CP/2003/6/Add.1, Decision 4/CP.9. Available from:
. 2003. Decision 6/CP.9 Further guidance for the operation of the Least Developed
Countries Fund. UNFCCC/CP/2003/6/Add.1, Decision 6/CP.9. Available from:
. 2005. Decision 3/CP.11 Further guidance for the operation of the Least Developed
Countries Fund. UNFCCC/CP/2005/5/Add.1, Decision 3/CP.11. Available from:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2005/cop11/eng/05a01.pdf
. 2010. Decision 1/CP.16 The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc
Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention.
UNFCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1, Decision 1/CP.16, paragraphs 15-16. Available from:
. 2012. Decision 12/CP.18 National Adaptation Plans. UNFCCC/CP/2012/8/Add.2,
Decision 12/CP.18, paragraphs 1 and 4. Available from:
. 2013. National Adaptation Programmes of Action - Index of NAPA Projects by
Country. May 2013. Available from:
https://unfccc.int/files/cooperation_support/least_developed_countries_portal/napa_project_
database/application/pdf/napa_index_by_country.pdf
. 2014. Decision 9/CP.20 Fifth Review of the Financial Mechanism.
UNFCCC/CP/2014/10/Add.2, Decision 9/CP.20. Available from:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2014/cop20/eng/10a02.pdf#page=20
. 2016. Non-Annex I national communications. May 2016. Available from:
http://unfccc.int/national_reports/non-annex_i_natcom/items/2979.php
Yarbrough, D.B., Shulha, L.M., Hopson, R.K., and Caruthers, F.A. 2011. The Program Evaluation
Standards: A Guide for Evaluators and Evaluation Users. 3rd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publishing.
ANNEX 1: OVERVIEW OF NAPA COUNTRY REPORTS (EAS)
Country
GEF
Agency
GEF
ID
Approval date of
NAPA
preparation
grant
Duration
Completion
Date
in
years
and
months
Afghanistan
UNEP
2530
1-May-04
1-Sep-09
Angola
UNEP
3409
1-Oct-07
1-Dec-11
Bangladesh
UNDP
2026
1-May-03
1-Nov-05
Updated version
1-Jun-09
Benin
UNDP
2461
1-Mar-04
1-Jan-08
10
Bhutan
UNDP
2352
1-Oct-03
1-May-06
Burkina Faso
UNDP
2156
1-Jul-03
1-Dec-07
Burundi
UNDP
2466
1-May-04
1-Feb-07
Cabo Verde
UNDP
2351
1-Oct-03
1-Dec-07
Cambodia
UNDP
1869
1-Dec-02
1-Mar-07
10
Central African Republic
UNEP
2425
1-Jan-04
1-Jun-08
11
Chad
UNDP
2480
1-Mar-04
1-Jan-10
10
12
Comoros
UNEP
2049
1-Jun-03
1-Nov-06
13
Democratic Republic of
the Congo
UNDP
2409
1-Dec-03
1-Sep-06
14
Djibouti
UNEP
2191
1-Aug-03
1-Oct-06
15
Equatorial Guinea
UNDP
5191
1-Nov-12
1-Nov-13
16
Eritrea
UNDP
1959
1-Dec-02
1-May-07
17
Ethiopia
UNDP
1960
1-Apr-03
1-Jun-08
18
Gambia
UNEP
2050
1-Jul-03
1-Jan-08
19
Guinea
UNDP
2362
1-Nov-03
1-Jul-07
Country
GEF
Agency
GEF
ID
Approval date of
NAPA
preparation
grant
Duration
Completion
Date
in
years
and
months
20
Guinea Bissau
UNDP
2524
1-May-04
1-Feb-08
21
Haiti
UNEP
1948
1-Jan-03
1-Dec-06
11
22
Kiribati
UNDP
2388
1-Oct-03
1-Jan-07
23
Lao People's Democratic

Republic
UNDP
2148
1-Jul-03
1-May-09
10
24
Lesotho
UNEP
2013
1-Feb-03
1-Jun-07
25
Liberia
UNEP
2414
1-Dec-03
1-Jul-08
26
Madagascar
World
Bank
2521
1-May-04
1-Dec-06
27
Malawi
UNDP
2027
1-Jun-03
1-Mar-06
28
Maldives
UNDP
2353
1-Oct-03
1-Mar-08
30
Mauritania
UNEP
1956
1-Jan-03
1-Nov-04
10
31
Mozambique
UNDP
2029
1-Apr-03
1-Jul-08
32
Myanmar
UNEP
3702
1-Jul-08
1-May-13
10
33
Nepal
UNDP
3412
1-Jan-08
1-Nov-10
10
34
Niger
UNDP
2481
1-Mar-04
1-Jul-06
35
Rwanda
UNEP
2484
1-Jun-04
1-May-07
11
36
Samoa
UNDP
1868
1-Dec-02
1-Dec-05
37
So Tom and Principe
World
Bank
2464
1-Apr-04
1-Nov-07
38
Senegal
UNEP
2085
1-Oct-03
1-Nov-06
39
Sierra Leone
UNDP
2482
1-Apr-04
1-Jun-08
40
Solomon Islands
UNDP
2814
1-Jun-05
1-Dec-08
41
Somalia
UNDP
5007
1-Jul-12
1-Apr-13
10
Country
GEF
Agency
GEF
ID
Approval date of
NAPA
preparation
grant
Duration
Completion
Date
in
years
and
months
South Sudan
UNDP
5564
1-Aug-13
Ongoing
42
Sudan
UNDP
2031
1-May-03
1-Jul-07
43
Timor-Leste
UNDP
3464
1-Oct-07
1-Sep-11
11
44
Togo
UNDP
2465
1-Mar-04
1-Sep-09
45
Tuvalu
UNDP
1969
1-Feb-03
1-May-07
46
Uganda
UNEP
2168
1-Aug-03
1-Dec-07
47
United Republic of
Tanzania
UNEP
1996
1-May-03
1-Sep-07
48
Vanuatu
UNDP
1970
1-May-03
1-Dec-07
49
Yemen
UNDP
1990
1-Jan-03
1-Apr-09
50
Zambia
UNDP
2413
1-Dec-03
1-Oct-07
10
Average duration according to the 2009 joint evaluation
10
Average duration of the 9 new NAPAs
10
Average duration of all NAPAs, with inclusion of the 9 new NAPAs
10
* = New NAPA since the 2009 joint evaluation of the LDCF.

# = Updated NAPA since the 2009 joint evaluation of the LDCF.
ANNEX 2: RESULTS FRAMEWORK OF THE GEF ADAPTATION PROGRAM

The revised results framework of the GEF Adaptation Program is structured around
three strategic objectives with associated outcomes and indicators. As of July 1, 2014, project
and program proponents that seek funds from the LDCF and/or the SCCF for climate change
adaptation will be requested to align their proposals with one or more of these strategic
objectives.
Goal
Increase resilience to the adverse impacts of climate change in vulnerable

developing countries, through both near- and long-term adaptation measures in
affected sectors, areas and communities; leading to a reduction of expected socioeconomic losses associated with climate change and variability.
Objective 1
Reduce the vulnerability of people, livelihoods, physical assets and natural

systems to the adverse effects of climate change
Indicator 1
Number of direct beneficiaries
Outcome 1.1
Vulnerability of physical assets and natural systems reduced
Indicator 2
Type and extent of assets strengthened and/or better managed to withstand the
effects of climate change
Outcome 1.2
Livelihoods and sources of income of vulnerable populations diversified and

strengthened
Indicator 3
Population benefiting from the adoption of diversified, climate-resilient livelihood

options
Outcome 1.3
Climate-resilient technologies and practices adopted and scaled up
Indicator 4
Extent of adoption of climate-resilient technologies/ practices
Objective 2

adaptation
Outcome 2.1
Increased awareness of climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation
Indicator 5
Public awareness activities carried out and population reached
Outcome 2.2
Access to improved climate information and early-warning systems enhanced at

regional, national, sub-national and local levels
Indicator 6
Risk and vulnerability assessments, and other relevant scientific and technical
assessments carried out and updated
Indicator 7
Number of people/ geographical area with access to improved climate information

services
Indicator 8
Number of people/ geographical area with access to improved, climate-related

early-warning information
12
Table continued
Outcome 2.3
Institutional and technical capacities and human skills strengthened to identify,

prioritize, implement, monitor and evaluate adaptation strategies and measures
Indicator 9
Number of people trained to identify, prioritize, implement, monitor and evaluate

adaptation strategies and measures
Indicator 10
Capacities of regional, national and sub-national institutions to identify, prioritize,

implement, monitor and evaluate adaptation strategies and measures
Objective 3
processes
Outcome 3.1
Institutional arrangements to lead, coordinate and support the integration of

climate change adaptation into relevant policies, plans and associated processes
established and strengthened
Indicator 11
Institutional arrangements to lead, coordinate and support the integration of

climate change adaptation into relevant policies, plans and associated processes
Outcome 3.2
Policies, plans and associated processes developed and strengthened to identify,

prioritize and integrate adaptation strategies and measures
Indicator 12
Regional, national and sector-wide policies, plans and processes developed and
strengthened to identify, prioritize and integrate adaptation strategies and
measures
Indicator 13
Sub-national plans and processes developed and strengthened to identify,

prioritize and integrate adaptation strategies and measures
Outcome 3.3
Systems and frameworks for the continuous monitoring, reporting and review of
adaptation established and strengthened
Indicator 14
Countries with systems and frameworks for the continuous monitoring, reporting
and review of adaptation
13
ANNEX 3: EVALUATION MATRIX

Key question
Indicators/basic data
Sources of information
Methodology
1) Relevance - How relevant is LDCF support in the light of UNFCCC COP guidance and decisions, the GEF adaptation programming strategy, and countries
broader developmental policies, plans and programs?
1. A. How relevant is LDCF support in relation to the
guidance and decisions of the UNFCCC, informing the
Funds mandate?
Level of coherence between COP

guidance the GEF adaptation
programming strategy and LDCF
support
NAPA and NAPA Implementation
Projects. alignment w UNFCCC
guidance and decisions
Project documentation, COP

guidance, GEF adaptation
strategy, GEF SEC and
Agency staff, government
partners, in-country
stakeholders
Meta-evaluation review, portfolio

analysis, interviews, field visits
Project documentation, GEF

SEC and Agency staff,
government partners, incountry stakeholders

NAPA and NAPA Implementation

Projects alignment with GEF
adaptation strategic pillars
1. B) To what extent is the LDCF portfolio connected to
countries environmental and sustainable development
agendas?
Degree to which LDCF supported

national environmental and
sustainable development
objectives and priorities
Primary NAPA priorities vs. NAPA
implementation project priorities
NAPA alignment with countrys
environmental/sustainable
development agendas
14
Key question
Methodology
2) Effectiveness and Efficiency - How effective and efficient is the LDCF in reaching its objectives, based on emerging results?
2. A) How effective is the LDCF in reaching the GEFs
three strategic adaptation objectives?
Degree to which the LDCF NAPA

implementation projects have
helped reduce vulnerability,
built adaptive capacity, integrate
adaption into policies and
processes.
Project documentation,
Council documents, GEF SEC
and Agency staff,

analysis including quality-at-entry
reviews, interviews, field visits
and Agency staff,


and Agency staff,
Council document review,

interviews, field visits
NAPA and NAPA

Implementation Projects
alignment with GEF adaptation
strategic objectives
Degree of reaching anticipated
adaptation benefits
2. B) What are the main factors that have been affecting
the Funds efficiency?
Effective communication
between GEF SEC, Agencies, and
national stakeholders
GEF funding vs. co-funding
Delay (planned versus actual
time for each stage of project
development) of NAPA
implementation projects
2. C) How has resource predictability, or the lack thereof,

affected the Funds programming?
Availability of resources for

program and pipeline buildup,
LDCF/SCCF Council doc info on
pending projects
15
Key question
Methodology
2) Effectiveness and Efficiency - How effective and efficient is the LDCF in reaching its objectives, based on emerging results?
2. D) How efficient is the Funds project cycle?
Time between project cycle

milestones; planned versus
actual time for each stage of
project development;
Portfolio analysis, interviews
GEF SEC and Agency staff,

Percentage of dropped and

cancelled projects in the
portfolio; evidence of the
impacts of slow / irregular /
unreliable commitment of funds
3) Results and sustainability - What are the emerging results and factors that affect the sustainability and resilience of these results?
3. A) To what extent has LDCF support had a catalytic
effect?
Catalytic effect indicators from

the portfolio analysis for both the
NAPA report and the
implementation projects (13
projects only!)
Council documents, GEF
Portfolio analysis, meta-evaluation

review, interviews, field visits
Global Environmental Benefits

indicators from the portfolio
analysis for both the NAPA report
and the implementation projects
3. B) How does LDCF support relate to other GEF focal
areas beyond climate change adaptation?
Other focal area indicator from

the portfolio analysis for both the
NAPA report and the
implementation projects.

3. C) What are the GEEW (Gender equality and the

empowerment of women) objectives achieved (or likely
to be achieved) and gender mainstreaming principles
adhered to by the LDCF?
Gender indicators from the

portfolio analysis, including rating
on gender strategy and plan,
gender data disaggregation and
gender mainstreaming rating

16
Key question
Methodology
3) Results and sustainability - What are the emerging results and factors that affect the sustainability and resilience of these results?
3. D To what extent are the emerging results of LDCF
support sustainable?
Catalytic effects indicators from

the portfolio analysis for the
implementation projects
(13 projects)
Sustainability ratings of the TERs
for completed projects (11
projects with TEs and TERs)
17

ANNEX 4: PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS PROTOCOL

The portfolio analysis protocol was developed in Surveymonkey Enterprise, and includes
advanced branching and skip logic elements. It consists of 80 questions over 23 pages, but not
all questions apply to all projects being reviewed.
18
4.1 Overview of Questions

The following general questions were used to gather information on specific projects,
NAPA Country Reports (Enabling Activities) as well as NAPA Implementation Projects, and to be
able to group data by, for example, implementing agency, GEF replenishment phase, etc.
(N=280):
Page 1 Information on reviewer and data source
-
Q.1 Name of reviewer (open text field)

Q.2 Documents used for review (multiple choice checklist with other option)
Page 2 Basic project information (EA/MSP/FSP)
Q.3 Projects GEF ID (numerical 4 digit field)

Q.4 Name of the project (open text field)
Q.5 Lead implementing agency (single choice pull down menu)
Q.6 Main focal area (single choice pull down menu)
Q.7 Project status (single choice pull down menu)
Q.8 Part of GEF replenishment phase (single choice pull down menu)
Q.9 Main trust fund for funding (single choice pull down menu)
Q.10 Type of in-country executing partner / agency (multiple choice checklist with
other option)
Q.11 Name(s) of in-country executing partner(s) / agency(ies) (open text field)
Q.12 Is this a NAPA Country Report (EA) or a NAPA Implementation Project (MSP/FSP)?
(single choice menu)
The next selection of questions are only used for NAPA Country Reports (EAs) for basic info
(N=51):
Page 3 NAPA Country Report (EA) Further project information
-
Q.13 Country of the NAPA Country Report (EA) (single choice pull down menu)
Q.14 Total funding in USD (numerical fields, split into 5 groups, being (1) LDCF grant / (2)
Agency fee / (3) Co-finance / (4) Total excluding co-finance / Total including co-finance)
Q.15 Milestone dates (date field, split into the following 5 groups, being (1) Date of the
first entry into PMIS / (2) Date of CEO approval / (3) Date of agency approval /
implementation start / (4) Completion date as written on the NAPA Country Report / (5)
Submission date as written on the UNFCCC website). Reviewers were instructed to take
actual date if available and expected date otherwise.
The protocol now jumps to Q.73 for NAPA Country Reports (EAs).
19
The next questions are for NAPA Implementation Projects (MSP/FSP), excluding cancelled
projects (N=217):
Page 4 NAPA Implementation Project Objectives and components (1/3)
-
Q.16 The project's overarching objective? (open text field)

Q.17 The main project components (10 open text fields)
Page 5 NAPA Implementation Project Outcome areas (2/3)
Q.18-Q.27 Expected outcomes under project components 1 to x (Open text fields for x
project components, x being the number of components filled out in Q.17).
Page 6 NAPA Implementation Project Type of project (3/3)
Q.28 What project type best describes this implementation project? (Single choice tick
boxes, with the following options: (1) MSP country implementation project / (2) FSP
country implementation project / (3) MSP country child project of regional parent / (4)
FSP country child project of regional parent / (5) MSP regional parent project / (6) FSP
regional parent project / (7) MSP global parent project / (8) FSP global parent project)
Page 7 NAPA Implementation Project Target country
Q.29 Target country for national implementation project. (single choice pull down menu)
The next questions are the quality at entry check and only asked for national level NAPA
Implementation Projects (MSP/FSP) that have been CEO Endorsed or are Under
Implementation (N=116). Ratings for Q.30 to Q.33 are on a 7-point scale from to an extremely
large extent up to to an extremely small extent, including the unable to assess option. A text
field is added to provide rating explanation.
Page 8 NAPA Implementation Project Quality at entry
-
Q.30 The adaptation benefits are clearly described.(They clearly convey the country's
adaptation aspirations in the light of the project reviewed)
Q. 31 The adaptation benefits described are realistic in the country's context.(They make
sense in the light of direct and indirect pressures / drivers of change)
Q.32 The adaptation benefits are explained in terms of measurable results (A results
framework, SMART indicators and target setting are part of the explanation)
Q.33 The project takes into account potential major risks and includes sufficient risk
Q.34 Probability that the project will deliver tangible adaptation benefits in line with set
objectives (A 4-scale probability rating from very high to very low, with an unable to
assess option. The rating is based on the answers on Q.30 to Q.33)
20
End of the quality at entry check.

The following questions are for regional parents (MSP/FSP):
Page 9 NAPA Implementation Project REGIONAL PARENT - Target countries
-
Q.35 LDC countries targeted by the regional project (multiple choice checklist)
Q.36 Non-LDC Non-Annex I countries targeted by regional project (multiple choice
checklist). This question is only visible if Q.9 on the trust fund was answered with the
option multiple trust funds.
Next questions are for all NAPA Implementation Projects (MSP/FSP), including cancelled
projects (N=229):
Page 10 NAPA Implementation Project Financial information
-
Q.37 Total funding in USD (numerical fields, split into 8 groups, being (1) PPG / (2) LDCF
grant / (3) Agency fee / (4) GEF-TF funding / (5) SCCF funding / (6) Co-finance / (7) Total
excluding co-finance / (8) Total including co-finance) groups 4 and 5 only show for multi
trust fund interventions.
Q.38 Co-funding sources (multiple choice checklist, with other option)
Q.39 Write down co-funding by source in USD (open numeric fields)
Next questions are for all NAPA Implementation Projects (MSP/FSP), excluding cancelled
projects (N=217):
Page 11 NAPA Implementation Project Milestone dates
-
Q.40 Milestone dates (date field, split into the following 4 groups, being (1) Date of the
first entry into PMIS / (2) Date of CEO endorsement / (3) Date of project implementation
start / (4) Date of project completion). Reviewers were instructed to take actual date if
available and expected date otherwise.
Q.41 Any indication of delays? (Yes / No)
Q.42 In case of delays, what is the biggest delay, between expected and actual, that can
be identified? (numeric field, days)
Q.43 Explain the delay and the milestone it relates to. (open text field)
Page 12 NAPA Implementation Project Relevance / Effectiveness
Q.44 Choose primary NAPA priorities addressed. (multiple choice checklist with the
options being, (1) Agriculture (including animal husbandry and fishery) / (2) Water
resource management / (3) Climate information systems / (4) NRM; fragile ecosystems
(incl. mountain ecosystems, mangroves, forestry, wildlife, land degradation and
management) / (5) Disaster risk management / (6) Infrastructural development / (7)
Climate education / (8) Sustainable rural livelihoods (other than agriculture and NRM) /
21
(9) Coastal zone management (other than mangrove ecosystems/reconstruction) / (10)

Tourism / (11) Human health / (12) Renewable energy / energy efficiency / energy
security / (13) Climate smart urban areas, and an other grouping with text field).
Ratings for Q.45 to Q.47 are on a 7-point scale from to an extremely large extent up to to an
extremely small extent, including the unable to assess option. A text field is added to provide
rating explanation.
-
Q.45 Alignment of NAPA Implementation Project with UNFCCC guidance and decisions.
(Rating on the 7-point scale was done in 7 categories, being (1) In support of countrydriven capacity-building activities / (2) Supporting the development and implementation
of NAPAs / NAPA Implementation Projects / (3) A country-driven learning-by-doing
process, in line with national priorities / (4) Cost-effective and complementary to other
funding sources / (5) With a focus on urgency and immediacy of adapting to the adverse
effects of climate change, and with a prioritization of activities / (6) Promoting the
integration of adaptation measures in national development and poverty reduction
strategies, plans or policies / (7) With a view to increasing resilience to the adverse
effects of climate change)
Q.46 Alignment of NAPA Implementation Project with GEF adaptation strategic pillars.
(Rating on the 7-point scale was done in 2 categories, being (1) Integrating climate
change adaptation into relevant policies, plans, programs and decision-making
processes in a continuous, progressive and iterative manner as a means to identify and
address short-, medium- and long-term adaptation needs / (2) Expanding synergies with
other GEF focal areas)
Q.47 Alignment of NAPA Implementation Project with GEF adaptation strategic
objectives (Rating on the 7-point scale was done in 3 categories, being (1) Reduce the
vulnerability of people, livelihoods, physical assets and natural systems to the adverse
effects of climate change / (2) Strengthen institutional and technical capacities for
effective climate change adaptation / (3) Integrate climate change adaptation into
relevant policies, plans and associated processes)
Page13: NAPA Implementation Project Sustainability / Relevance
Q.48 Select focal areas other than the main focal area to which the NAPA
Implementation Project (potentially) contributes. (multiple choice checklist with the
options being, (1) Biodiversity / (2) Land Degradation / (3) International Waters (4)
Mercury / (5) Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) / (6) Persistent Organic Pollutants
(POP) / (7) NO FOCAL AREAS OTHER THAN CLIMATE CHANGE APPLY)
Q.49 Overall assessment of NAPA Implementation Projects alignment with NAPA
priorities (Reviewer compares the outcome areas of the NAPA Implementation Project
with the priority activities as identified in the NAPA Country Report (EA). Single choice
checklist with the options being, (1) Very High: The Implementation Projects' outcome
areas address primary priority areas as listed / outlined in the NAPA Country Report / (2)
22
High: The Implementation Projects' outcome areas do not address primary priority areas
as listed / outlined in the NAPA Country Report, but address other priorities that are
outlined in the NAPA Country Report / (3) Low: The Implementation Projects' might
touch upon some priority areas, but do not address specific priorities as outlined in the
NAPA Country Report in a structural manner / (4) None: The Implementation Projects do
not address ANY of the priorities (primary or other) outlined in the NAPA Country
Report. And a final option Unable to Assess)
Q.50 (Potential) contribution of NAPA Implementation Project to GEF Global
Environmental Benefits (GEBs). (Rating on the 7-point scale was done in 6 categories,
being (1) Maintain globally significant biodiversity and the ecosystem goods and services
that it provides to society / (2) Sustainable land management in production systems, i.e.
agriculture, rangelands, and forest landscapes / (3) Promotion of collective management
of trans-boundary water systems and implementation of the full range of policy, legal,
and institutional reforms and investments contributing to sustainable use and
maintenance of ecosystem services / (4) Support to transformational shifts towards a
low-emission and resilient development path / (5) Increase in phase-out, disposal and
reduction of releases of POPs, ODS, mercury and other chemicals of global concern / (6)
Enhance capacity of countries to implement MEAs (multilateral environmental
financial and legal frameworks).
Q.51 Has the Implementation Project indicated risks - including climatic as well as nonclimatic risks - that might prevent the project objectives from being achieved? (Reviewer
rates on a 4-point scale, being (1) Yes, sufficiently: A sufficiently wide variety of risks,
climatic as well as non-climatic, has been identified, including a description of their
potential impact as well as the probability of each risk materializing within the projects
lifetime / (2) Yes, but not sufficiently: A selection of risks have been identified, but some
risk factors one would expect in the countrys context have not been mentioned, and
risk impact and/or probability are missing in some instances / (3) Yes, but with serious
omissions: Some risks have been identified, but a number of major risk factors are
missing. The risk impact is not described for all risks and the probability is missing for
most / (4) No: There is no clear risk appreciation).
Q.52 Does the NAPA Implementation Project provide risk mitigation strategies, or
actions to be taken in the case that identified risks would materialize? (Reviewer rates
on a 3-point scale, being (1) Yes, for all or most / (2) Yes, for some / (3) No)
Page 14: NAPA Implementation Project Gender
Q.53 Does the NAPA Implementation Project include a gender mainstreaming strategy
or plan? (Reviewer rates on a 3-point scale, being (1) Yes / (2) No, but its/their
development is implied / (3) No)
23
Q.54Does the NAPA Implementation Project incorporate a gender responsive results

framework, including gender disaggregated indicators? (Reviewer rates on a 3-point
scale, being (1) Yes / (2) No, but its/their development is implied / (3) No)
Q.55 Overall assessment of Implementation Projects inclusion of the gender component.
(Reviewer rates on a 5-point scale, being (1) Gender-blind / (2) Gender-aware / (3)
Gender-sensitive / (4) Gender-mainstreamed / (5)Gender-transformative, with a
separate category Not gender-relevant)
The next questions are for projects that have been completed. (N=13)
Ratings for Q.56 and Q.57 are on a 7-point scale from to an extremely large extent up to to an
rating explanation.
Page 15: NAPA Implementation Project Catalytic effects
-
Q.56 Identify the Implementation Project's alignment with the following catalytic effects.
(Rating on the 7-point scale was done in 4 categories, being (1) PUBLIC GOOD: The
project developed or introduced new technologies and/or approaches (CE1) / (2)
DEMONSTRATION: Demonstration sites and/or training was implemented to further
catalyze the new technologies / approaches (CE2) / (3) REPLICATION: Activities,
demonstrations, and/or techniques are repeated within or outside the project (CE3) /
(4) SCALING-UP: Approaches developed through the project are taken up on a regional,
national scale, becoming widely accepted (CE4))
Q.57 Identify the NAPA Implementation Projects alignment with the following catalytic
effects, identified in terminal evaluations as being catalytic elements of the project.
(Rating on the 7-point scale was done in 7 categories, being (1) Project generated
significant social, economic, cultural and human well-being co-benefits. / (2) Project
built on the traditional knowledge and practices of local communities. / (3) The project
had impact on multiple sectors and at different levels of society. / (4) Project built
foundations for larger scale project(s) through analytic work, assessments and capacity
building activities. / (5) The project was instrumental in developing longer-term
partnerships. / (6) Project was successful in developing new cost sharing approaches /
leveraging new resources. / (7) Project improved management effectiveness of
adaptation-relevant (sub-)national systems)
Page 16: NAPA Implementation Project - Terminal evaluation (1/4)
Q.58 Is there a Terminal Evaluation Review (TER) available for the project? (Yes / No)
Q.59 Is there a Terminal Evaluation (TE) document for the completed Implementation
Project? (Yes / No)
24
The next questions are for projects that have been completed, and for which a TE and TER are
available. (N=11)
Page 17: NAPA Implementation Project - Terminal evaluation review (2/4)
-
Q.60 What is the Implementation Projects outcome rating according to the Terminal
Evaluation Review (TER)? (Rating on a 6-point scale from highly satisfactory to highly
unsatisfactory, with two separate categories being not rated and unable to assess)
Q.61 What is the Implementation Projects sustainability rating according to the
Terminal Evaluation Review (TER)? (Rating on a 4-point scale from likely to unlikely,
with two separate categories being not rated and unable to assess)
Q.62 What is the Implementation Projects M&E design at entry rating according to the
Terminal Evaluation Review (TER)? (Question is answered for implementing agencies
other than World Bank. Rating on a 6-point scale from highly satisfactory to highly
unsatisfactory, with two separate categories being not rated and unable to assess)
Q.63 What is the Implementation Projects M&E design at entry rating according to the
Terminal Evaluation Review (TER)? (Question is answered only for the World Bank as
implementing agency. Rating on a 4-point scale from high to negligible, with two
separate categories being not rated and unable to assess)
Q.64 What is the Implementation Projects M&E plan implementation rating according
to the Terminal Evaluation Review (TER)? (Question is answered for implementing
agencies other than World Bank. Rating on a 6-point scale from highly satisfactory to
highly unsatisfactory, with two separate categories being not rated and unable to
assess)
Q.65 What is the Implementation Projects M&E plan implementation rating according
to the Terminal Evaluation Review (TER)? (Question is answered only for the World Bank
as implementing agency. Rating on a 4-point scale from high to negligible, with two
separate categories being not rated and unable to assess)
Page 18: NAPA Implementation Project - Terminal evaluation innovation (3/4)
Q.66 Provide a synopsis of innovations that have been identified in the Implementation
Projects Terminal Evaluation (TE). (Open text field)
Page 19: NAPA Implementation Project - Terminal evaluation lessons learned (4/4)
Q.67 What were the lessons learned on Communications and Stakeholder Involvement?
(Open text field)
Q.68 What were the lessons learned on Project Management? (Open text field)
Q.69 What were the lessons learned on Monitoring and Evaluation? (Open text field)
Q.70 What were the content-technical lessons learned in relation to Climate Change
Adaptation? (Open text field)
25
Q.71 Add any other lessons learned that would not be covered in the answers to the
above 4 questions. (Open text field)
The following one question is only for projects that have been cancelled or dropped. (N=12)
Page 20: NAPA Implementation Project Cancelled or dropped
-
Q.72 Looking at the available documents and in the Excel project file, is there any
indication when and why this project was canceled? (Open text field)
The protocol jumped from Q.15 for NAPA Country Reports (EAs). (N=51)
Page 21: NAPA Country Report (EA) Relevance / Effectiveness
-
Q.73 Choose primary NAPA priority areas identified. (multiple choice checklist with the
options being, (1) Agriculture (including animal husbandry and fishery) / (2) Water
resource management / (3) Climate information systems / (4) NRM; fragile ecosystems
(incl. mountain ecosystems, mangroves, forestry, wildlife, land degradation and
management) / (5) Disaster risk management / (6) Infrastructural development / (7)
Climate education / (8) Sustainable rural livelihoods (other than agriculture and NRM) /
(9) Coastal zone management (other than mangrove ecosystems/reconstruction) / (10)
Tourism / (11) Human health / (12) Renewable energy / energy efficiency / energy
security / (13) Climate smart urban areas, and an other grouping with text field).
Ratings for Q.74 to Q.76 are on a 7-point scale from to an extremely large extent up to to an
rating explanation.
-
Q.74 Alignment of NAPA Country Report with UNFCCC guidance and decisions. (Rating
on the 7-point scale was done in 8 categories, being (1) In support of country-driven
capacity-building activities / (2) Supporting the development and implementation of
NAPAs / NAPA Implementation Projects / (3) A country-driven learning-by-doing
process, in line with national priorities / (4) Cost-effective and complementary to other
funding sources / (5) With a focus on urgency and immediacy of adapting to the adverse
effects of climate change, and with a prioritization of activities / (6) Promoting the
integration of adaptation measures in national development and poverty reduction
strategies, plans or policies / (7) With a view to increasing resilience to the adverse
effects of climate change / (8) In support of the National Communications to the
Convention)
Q.75 Alignment of NAPA Country Report with GEF adaptation strategic pillars.
(Rating on the 7-point scale was done in 2 categories, being (1) Integrating climate
change adaptation into relevant policies, plans, programs and decision-making
processes in a continuous, progressive and iterative manner as a means to identify and
address short-, medium- and long-term adaptation needs / (2) Expanding synergies with
other GEF focal areas)
26
Q.76 Alignment of NAPA Country Report with GEF adaptation strategic objectives (Rating
on the 7-point scale was done in 3 categories, being (1) Reduce the vulnerability of
people, livelihoods, physical assets and natural systems to the adverse effects of climate
change / (2) Strengthen institutional and technical capacities for effective climate
change adaptation / (3) Integrate climate change adaptation into relevant policies, plans
and associated processes)
Page 22: NAPA Country Report Sustainability / Relevance
-
Q.77 Select focal areas other than the main focal area to which the NAPA Country
Report (potentially) contributes. (multiple choice checklist with the options being, (1)
Biodiversity / (2) Land Degradation / (3) International Waters (4) Mercury / (5) Ozone
Depleting Substances (ODS) / (6) Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) / (7) NO FOCAL
AREAS OTHER THAN CLIMATE CHANGE APPLY)
Q.78 Overall assessment of NAPA Country Report's alignment with the country's
environmental and sustainable development agendas. (Reviewer identifies proof of
alignment in the project documentation available. Single choice checklist with the
options being, (1) Very High: The mainstreaming of NAPA priorities into the country's
environmental and sustainable development agendas is clearly explained, including an
overview of linkages with existing and developing policies, plans and strategies / (2)
sustainable development agendas is mentioned in general terms, but linkages to specific
existing and developing policies, plans and strategies are incomplete or lacking / (3)
sustainable development agendas is not adequately addressed / (4) None: The
NAPA does not address ANY linkages between NAPA priorities and the country's
environmental and sustainable development agendas. And a final option Unable to
Assess)
Q.79 (Potential) contribution of NAPA Country Report to GEF Global Environmental
Benefits (GEBs). (Rating on the 7-point scale was done in 6 categories, being (1)
Maintain globally significant biodiversity and the ecosystem goods and services that it
provides to society / (2) Sustainable land management in production systems, i.e.
agriculture, rangelands, and forest landscapes / (3) Promotion of collective management
of trans-boundary water systems and implementation of the full range of policy, legal,
and institutional reforms and investments contributing to sustainable use and
maintenance of ecosystem services / (4) Support to transformational shifts towards a
low-emission and resilient development path / (5) Increase in phase-out, disposal and
reduction of releases of POPs, ODS, mercury and other chemicals of global concern / (6)
Enhance capacity of countries to implement MEAs (multilateral environmental
financial and legal frameworks).
27
Rating for Q.80 is on a 7-point scale from to an extremely large extent up to to an extremely
small extent, including the unable to assess option. A text field is added to provide rating
explanation.
-
Q.80 Catalytic effects identified in the NAPA Country Report and National
Communications to the UNFCCC. (Rating on the 7-point scale was done in 8 categories of
techniques and tools applied that are seen as proxies for potential catalytic effects,
being (1) Cross- or multi-sectoral integration of Vulnerability Assessment (VA) outcomes
/ (2) Vulnerability is ranked across multiple sectors / (3) Integrated assessment modeling
(IAM) used to assess economic impacts across the economy / (4) Optimization
approaches (eg. BCA, CEA, MCa, etc.) used in adaptation decision-making / (5)
Uncertainty approaches (eg. risk management, adaptive management, adaptation
pathways) used in adaptation decision-making / (6) Strategic mainstreaming applied;
climate change is incorporated within policies and plans / (7) Operational
mainstreaming applied; risk management of climate impacts on development objectives
/ (8) National level M&E framework developed to evaluate the performance and
effectiveness of adaptation measures.
4.2 Explanation of Ratings Used

The use of a 7-point agreement scale
A first choice in the development of the agreement scale for the portfolio analysis
protocol was to make use of either an even number or an odd number of options, in the latter
case there being a middle category. In the case of this analysis, the middle category does not
separate positive from negative answers but is part of a continuum of options. The continuum
of options is moving from agreed or aligned to an extremely large extent to agreed or aligned to
an extremely small extent. Ethnic and racial preferences for odd and even scales were taken
into account and a choice was made for an odd numbered Likert-type scale.
A second choice relates to the number of answer options to choose from, and with an
earlier choice being made for an odd number of options the choice was to either opt for a 5point scale or a 7-point scale. Given that the same rating scale would be used by the reviewers
for a multitude of questions, it was pertinent that the scale was applicable to all questions. In
some cases there was a demand for more options in order to be able to nuance answers, while
for other questions this was not entirely necessary. A 7-point scale was chosen in order to
increase variance in the measure. Note that for each rating the reviewer would need to explain
in an open text field why this specific point in the scale was chosen.
Given the type of questions being whether NAPA Implementation Project x contributes
to a specific Global Environmental Benefit, or a NAPA Implementation Project being aligned
with its NAPA Country Report, a choice was made to use a 7-point Likert-type scale that would
28
entirely be in the positive spectrum. There is no negative alignment, or disagreement, and the
questions in the portfolio analysis are written in a way that a positive spectrum of answer
categories makes sense. The reviewers were briefed on the selection and use of the scale,
which looks as follows:
To an Extremely Large Extent

To a Very Large Extent
To a Large Extent
To a Moderate Extent
To a Small Extent
To a Very Small Extent
To an Extremely Small Extent
Unable to assess, or not applicable
NAPA Implementation Projects alignment with the NAPA Country Report

financing mechanisms. The LDCF is mandated by parties to the UNFCCC to, among others,
provide support to the least developed countries (LDCs) climate adaptation efforts, including
the preparation of National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs), the implementation of
NAPA priority projects in LDCs, as well as support for the preparation of the NAP process in
eligible developing countries.
NAPAs provide a process for LDCs to identify priority activities that respond to their
urgent and immediate needs to adapt to climate change those for which further delay would
increase vulnerability and/or costs at a later stage. The main content of NAPA Country Reports
is a country-driven list of ranked priority adaptation activities and projects, designed to
facilitate the development of proposals NAPA Implementation Projects.
For the LDCF Program Evaluation 2016 NAPA Country Reports as well as NAPA
Implementation Projects have been reviewed and country priorities for adaptation activities
have been identified for each. These priority adaptation activities fitted the following
groupings:

Natural resource management & fragile ecosystems (including mountain ecosystems,
mangroves, forestry, wildlife, land degradation and management)
Human health
29

Climate education
Tourism
Sustainable rural livelihoods (other than agriculture and NRM).
Most NAPA Country Reports provided a list of prioritized adaptation activities. For those
that did not, sectoral prioritization was used by the reviewer to identify areas of priority
adaptation activities. For those that did not prioritize activities nor provide an overview of
priority sectors, the key environmental stresses and climatic vulnerabilities as identified in the
NAPA Country Report were used by the reviewer to identify key areas of priority adaptation
activities.
For each country, the scoring of NAPA Implementation Projects key priority adaptation
activities was compared against its NAPA Country Report scoring on the same. This comparison
resulted in an alignment rating for each NAPA Implementation Project with the key priority
areas as identified in the NAPA Country Report.
The reviewer rated NAPA Implementation Projects alignment with key priority areas in the
NAPA Country Reports as follows:
Very High: The NAPA Implementation Projects outcome areas address primary priority
areas as listed / outlined in the NAPA Country Report.
High: The NAPA Implementation Projects outcome areas do not address primary
priority areas as listed / outlined in the NAPA Country Report, but address other
priorities that are outlined in the NAPA Country Report.
Low: The NAPA Implementation Project might touch upon some priority areas (primary
or other), but does not address specific priorities as outlined in the NAPA Country
Report in a structural manner.
No Alignment: Project does not address ANY of the priorities (primary or other) outline
in the country NAPA report.
Unable to Assess. The reviewer was unable to assess outcomes on this dimension.
Gender rating
The GEF Gender Equality Action Plan (GEAP) (GEF/C.47/09.Rev.01, 2014) operationalizes
the GEF Policy on Gender Mainstreaming (Policy: SD/PL/02, 2012). The Policy states that the
GEF Secretariat and GEF Partner Agencies shall strive to attain the goal of gender equality, the
equal treatment of women and men, including the equal access to resources and services
through its operations. And to accomplish this goal, the GEF Secretariat and GEF Agencies
shall mainstream gender into their operations, including efforts to analyze systematically and
address the specific needs of both women and men in GEF projects (p.2).
30
The gender mainstreaming description as part of the GEAP glossary states that
Mainstreaming involves ensuring that gender perspectives and attention to the goal of gender
equality are central to all activities. And It [gender mainstreaming] is a strategy for making
the concerns and experiences of women as well as of men an integral part of the design,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and programs in all political, economic
and societal spheres, so that women and men benefit equally, and inequality is not
perpetuated (p.7).
The ultimate goal of mainstreaming is to achieve gender equality, and the goal of
projects taking into account gender is to mainstream gender according to the above
description. It was decided to relax the gender mainstreaming description a little in the gender
assessment and not aim for gender perspectives and gender equality being central to all
activities, but to most, if not all, activities. The gender rating takes gender mainstreaming as
the goal for projects, but has added an even higher goal of being gender transformative to
identify those projects that go beyond gender mainstreaming and could be an example to
others when it comes to gender.
Overall Performance Study 5 (OPS5) Technical Document 16 Sub-study on the GEFs
Policy on Gender Mainstreaming (IEO 2014) makes use of the following project rating
categories for gender mainstreaming:
Serious Omission: The project contained little or no reference to gender issues, but it
should have included gender concerns because of the nature of the project.
Not Sufficient: Gender issues were mentioned in the project documents, but no real
attention was paid to these concerns in project activities.
Gender Mainstreamed: Gender issues were integrated into the project.
Not Relevant: Gender and social issues were not considered and were not expected to
be considered in the project.
In line with the gender rationale of the UNDP Gender Marker, it was questioned
whether it is appropriate to have initiatives where gender equality and/or womens
empowerment issues can be considered not applicable, or not relevant. We kept the not
relevant category, but with the caveat that in practice it is rare for projects to not have any
gender relevance, given they then would be assumed to have no relevance to humans. The
rating category gender blind was added for those projects that do not demonstrate any
gender awareness, but should. Gender aware and gender sensitive are chosen as
categorizations, because their connotation is seen as more positive than the categories used in
the earlier mentioned sub-study.
The reviewer provided a gender rating for NAPA Implementation Projects as follows:
Gender-blind. Project does not demonstrate awareness of the set of roles, rights,
31
Gender-aware. Project recognizes the economic / social / political roles, rights,

entitlements, responsibilities, obligations and power relations socially assigned to men
and women, but might work around existing gender differences and inequalities or does
not sufficiently show how it addresses gender differences and promotes gender
equalities.
Gender-sensitive. Project adopts gender sensitive methodologies (a gender analysis is
undertaken, gender disaggregated data are collected, gender sensitive indicators are
integrated in monitoring and evaluation) to address gender differences and promote
gender equality.
Gender-mainstreamed. Project ensures that gender perspectives and attention to the
goal of gender equality are central to most, if not all, activities. It assesses the
implications for women and men of any planned action, including legislation, policies or
programs, in any area and at all levels.
Gender-transformative. Project goes beyond gender-mainstreaming and facilitates a
critical examination' of gender norms, roles, and relationships; strengthens or creates
systems that support gender equity; and/or questions and changes gender norms and
dynamics.
Not gender-relevant. Gender plays no role in the planned intervention. (Note that in
practice it is rare for projects to not have any gender relevance. If a project touches
upon the lives of people, either directly or indirectly, it has gender relevance).
Terminal evaluation report review guidelines

The assessments in the terminal evaluation reviews are based largely on the information
presented in the terminal evaluation report. If insufficient information is presented in a
terminal evaluation report to assess a specific issue such as, for example, quality of the
projects monitoring and evaluation system or a specific aspect of sustainability, then the
preparer of the terminal evaluation reviews briefly indicates so in that section and elaborate
more if appropriate in the section of the review that addresses quality of report. If the reviews
preparer possesses other first-hand information such as, for example, from a field visit to the
project, and this information is relevant to the terminal evaluation reviews, then it should be
included in the reviews only under the heading Additional independent information available
to the reviewer. The preparer of the terminal evaluation review has taken into account all the
independent relevant information when verifying ratings.
Criteria for Outcome Ratings
Based on the information provided in the terminal evaluation report, the terminal
evaluation review makes an assessment of the extent to which the projects major relevant
objectives were achieved or are expected to be achieved, relevance of the project results, and
the projects cost-effectiveness. The ratings on the outcomes of the project are based on
performance on the following criteria:
32
a) Relevance. Were project outcomes consistent with the focal area/operational program
strategies and country priorities? Explain.
b) Effectiveness. Are project outcomes commensurate with the expected outcomes (as
described in the project document) and the problems the project was intended to
address (that is, the original or modified project objectives)?
c) Efficiency. Include an assessment of outcomes and impacts in relation to inputs, costs,
and implementation times based on the following questions: Was the project costeffective? How does the projects cost/time versus outcomes equation compare to that
of similar projects? Was the project implementation delayed due to any bureaucratic,
administrative, or political problems and did that affect cost-effectiveness?
An overall rating is provided according to the achievement and shortcomings in the
three criteria ranging from highly satisfactory, satisfactory, moderately satisfactory, moderately
unsatisfactory, unsatisfactory, highly unsatisfactory, and unable to assess.
The reviewer of the terminal evaluation provides a rating under each of the three
criteria (relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency). Relevance of outcomes is rated on a binary
scale: a satisfactory or an unsatisfactory rating is provided. If an unsatisfactory rating has
been provided on this criterion, the overall outcome achievement rating may not be higher
than unsatisfactory. Effectiveness and Efficiency is rated as follows:
Highly satisfactory. The project had no shortcomings.

Satisfactory. The project had minor shortcomings.
Moderately satisfactory. The project had moderate shortcomings.
Moderately unsatisfactory. The project had noticeable shortcomings.
Unsatisfactory. The project had major shortcomings.
Highly unsatisfactory. The project had severe shortcomings.
Unable to assess. The reviewer was unable to assess outcomes on this dimension.
The calculation of the overall outcomes score of projects considers all three criteria, of
which relevance criterion will be applied first - the overall outcome achievement rating may not
be higher than unsatisfactory. The second constraint that is applied is that the overall
outcome achievement rating may not be higher than the effectiveness rating. The third
constraint that is applied is that the overall rating may not be higher than the average score of
effectiveness and efficiency criteria calculated using the following formula:
Outcomes = (b + c) 2
In case the average score is lower than the score obtained after application of the first
two constraints, then the average score will become the overall score. The score is converted
into an overall rating with mid values being rounded up upwards.
33
Impacts
Has the project achieved impacts, or is it likely that outcomes will lead to the expected
impacts? Impacts will be understood to include positive and negative, primary and secondary
long-term effects produced by a development intervention. They could be produced directly or
indirectly and could be intended or unintended. The terminal evaluation reviews preparer
takes note of any mention of impacts, especially global environmental benefits, in the terminal
evaluation report including the likelihood that the project outcomes will contribute to their
achievement. Negative impacts mentioned in the terminal evaluation report should be noted
and recorded in section 2 of the terminal evaluation reviews template in the subsection on
Issues that require follow-up. Although project impacts are to be described, they will not be
rated.
Criteria for Sustainability Ratings
Sustainability will be understood as the likelihood of continuation of project benefits
after completion of project implementation (GEF 2000). To assess sustainability, the terminal
evaluation reviewer identifies and assesses key risks that could undermine continuation of
benefits at the time of the evaluation. Some of these risks might include the absence of or
inadequate financial resources, an enabling legal framework, commitment from key
stakeholders, and enabling economy. The following four types of risk factors are assessed by
the terminal evaluation reviewer to rate the likelihood of sustainability of project outcomes:
financial, sociopolitical, institutional frameworks and governance, and environmental.
The following questions provide guidance to assess if the factors are met:
Financial resources. What is the likelihood that financial resources will be available to
continue the activities that result in the continuation of benefits (income-generating
activities, and trends that may indicate that it is likely that in future there will be
adequate financial resources for sustaining project outcomes)?
Sociopolitical. Are there any social or political risks that can undermine the longevity of
project outcomes? What is the risk that the level of stakeholder ownership is insufficient
to allow for project outcomes/benefits to be sustained? Do the various key stakeholders
see in their interest that the project benefits continue to flow? Is there sufficient
public/stakeholder awareness in support of the long-term objectives of the project?
Institutional framework and governance. Do the legal frameworks, policies, and
governance structures and processes pose any threat to the continuation of project
benefits? While assessing this parameter, consider if the required systems for
accountability and transparency, and the required technical know-how, are in place.
Environmental. Are there any environmental risks that can undermine the future flow of
project environmental benefits? The terminal evaluation should assess whether certain
activities in the project area will pose a threat to the sustainability of project outcomes.
For example, construction of dam in a protected area could inundate a sizable area and
thereby neutralize the biodiversity-related gains made by the project.
34
The reviewer provides a rating under each of the four criteria (financial resources,
sociopolitical, institutional, and environmental) as follows:
Likely. There are no risks affecting that criterion of sustainability.

Moderately likely. There are moderate risks that affect that criterion of sustainability.
Moderately unlikely. There are significant risks that affect that criterion of
sustainability.
Unlikely. There are severe risks affecting that criterion of sustainability.
Unable to assess. Unable to assess risk on this dimension.
Not applicable. This dimension is not applicable to the project.
A number rating 14 is provided in each category according to the achievement and

shortcomings with likely = 4, moderately likely = 3, moderately unlikely = 2, unlikely = 1, and not
applicable= 0. A rating of unable to assess will be used if the reviewer is unable to assess any
aspect of sustainability. In such instances, it may not be possible to assess the overall
sustainability.
All the risk dimensions of sustainability are critical. Therefore, the overall rating will not
be higher than the rating of the dimension with the lowest rating. For example, if the project
has an unlikely rating in either of the dimensions, then its overall rating cannot be higher than
unlikely, regardless of whether higher ratings in other dimensions of sustainability produce a
higher average
Criteria for Assessment of Quality of Project M&E Systems
GEF projects are required to develop M&E plans by the time of work program inclusion,
to appropriately budget M&E plans, and to fully carry out the M&E plan during implementation.
Project managers are also expected to use the information generated by the M&E system
during project implementation to improve and adapt the project to changing situations. Given
the long-term nature of many GEF projects, projects are also encouraged to include long-term
monitoring plans that measure results (such as environmental results) after project completion.
Terminal evaluation reviews will include an assessment of the achievement and shortcomings
of M&E systems.
a) M&E design. Project should have a sound M&E plan to monitor results and track
progress in achieving project objectives. An M&E plan should include a baseline
(including data, methodology, and so on), SMART (specific, measurable, achievable,
realistic, and timely) indicators and data analysis systems, and evaluation studies at
specific times to assess results. The time frame for various M&E activities and standards
for outputs should have been specified. Questions to guide this assessment include: In
retrospect, was the M&E plan at entry practicable and sufficient (sufficient and practical
indicators identified; timely baseline; targets created; effective use of data collection;
analysis systems including studies and reports; practical organization and logistics in
terms of what, who, and when for M&E activities)?
35
b) M&E plan implementation. The M&E system was in place and allowed the timely
tracking of results and progress toward project objectives throughout the project.
Annual project reports were complete, accurate, and with well-justified ratings. The
information provided by the M&E system was used to improve and adapt project
performance. An M&E system should be in place with proper training for parties
responsible for M&E activities to ensure that data will continue to be collected and used
after project closure. Question to guide this assessment include: Did the project M&E
system operate throughout the project? How was M&E information used during the
project? Did it allow for tracking of progress toward project objectives? Did the project
provide proper training for parties responsible for M&E activities to ensure data will
continue to be collected and used after project closure?
c) Other questions. This includes questions on funding and whether the M&E system was a
good practice.
Was sufficient funding provided for M&E in the budget included in the project
document?
Was sufficient and timely funding provided for M&E during project
implementation?
Can the project M&E system be considered a good practice?
A number rating 16 is to be provided for each criterion according to the achievement
and shortcomings with highly satisfactory = 6, satisfactory = 5, moderately satisfactory = 4,
moderately unsatisfactory = 3, unsatisfactory = 2, highly unsatisfactory = 1, and unable to
assess = no rating. The reviewer of the terminal evaluation provides a rating under each of the
three criteria (M&E design, M&E plan implementation, and M&E properly budgeted and
funded) as follows:
Highly satisfactory. There were no shortcomings in that criterion of the project M&E
system.
Satisfactory. There were minor shortcomings in that criterion of the project M&E
system.
Moderately satisfactory. There were moderate shortcomings in that criterion of the
project M&E system.
Moderately unsatisfactory. There were significant shortcomings in that criterion of the
project M&E system.
Unsatisfactory. There were major shortcomings in that criterion of the project M&E
system.
Highly unsatisfactory. There was no project M&E system.
The rating for M&E during implementation will be the overall rating of the M&E system: Rating
on the Quality of the Project Monitoring and Evaluation System = b
36
4.3 Results for the NAPA Country Reports (Enabling Activities)

Q.5 Lead implementing agency.
NAPA Country Reports (Enabling Activities) Lead implementing agency
(N=51)
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme)
33
64.7%
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme)
15
29.4%
5.9%
51
100.0%
WBG (World Bank)

Total:
Q.6 Main focal area.

NAPA Country Reports (Enabling Activities) Main focal area
(N=51)
Climate Change
Total:
51
100.0%
51
100.0%
Q.7 Project status.

NAPA Country Reports (Enabling Activities) - Status
(N=51)
CEO Endorsed / Approved

Completed
Total:
2.0%
50
98.0%
51
100.0%
Q.8 Part of GEF replenishment phase.

NAPA Country Reports (Enabling Activities) Part of GEF replenishment phase
(N=51)
GEF-3
44
86.3%
GEF-4
7.8%
GEF-5
5.9%
51
100.0%
Total:
Q.9 Main trust fund for funding.

NAPA Country Reports (Enabling Activities) Main trust fund
(N=51)
LDCF (Least Developed Countries Fund)
51
37
100.0%
Total:
51
100.0%
Q.10 Type of in-country executing partner / agency.

NAPA Country Reports (Enabling Activities) Main in-country executing partner / agency
(N=51)
Government
49
96.1%
GEF agency
3.9%
51
100.0%
Total:
Q.73 Choose primary NAPA priority areas identified.

NAPA Country Reports (Enabling Activities) - Priority areas1
(N=51)
49
96.08%
48
94.12%
46
90.20%
NRM; fragile ecosystems (incl. mountain ecosystems, mangroves,

forestry, wildlife, land degradation and management)
32
62.75%
Coastal zone management (other than mangrove

ecosystems/reconstruction)
32
62.75%
30
58.82%
Human health
29
56.86%
26
50.98%
23
45.10%
Climate education
19
37.25%
Tourism
16
31.37%
13
25.49%
17.65%
Other (please specify)2
15.69%
"Institutional capacity development" mentioned 6 times
51 100.00%
Q.74 Alignment of NAPA Country Report with UNFCCC guidance and decisions.
See figure on the following page.
Q.75 Alignment of NAPA Country Report with GEF adaptation strategic pillars.
38
NAPA Country Reports' alignment with UNFCCC guidance and decisions (N=51)
1. In support of country-driven capacitybuilding activities
96%
2% 2%
2. Supporting the development and

implementation of NAPAs / NAPA
Implementation Projects
94%
6%
3. A country-driven learning-by-doing
process, in line with national priorities
96%
4%
4. Cost-effective and complementary to

other funding sources
74%
17%
5. With a focus on urgency and

immediacy of adapting to the adverse
effects of climate change, and with a
prioritization of activities
96%
4%
6. Promoting the integration of

adaptation measures in national
development and poverty reduction
strategies, plans or policies
90%
8% 2%
7. With a view to increasing resilience to

the adverse effects of climate change
78%
8. In support of the National

Communications to the Convention
90%
10%
9%
12%
4% 6%
NAPA Country Reports' alignment with GEF adaptation strategic pillars (N=51)
relevant policies, plans, programs and
decision-making processes in a continuous,
progressive and iterative manner as a means
88%
2. Expanding synergies with other GEF focal

areas.
88%
39
10% 2%
6% 6%
Q.76 Alignment of NAPA Country Report with GEF adaptation strategic objectives.
NAPA Country Reports' alignment with GEF adaptation strategic objectives (N=51)
people, livelihoods,
physical assets and natural systems
to the
technical capacities
for effective climate change
adaptation.
adaptation into
relevant policies, plans and
associated processes.
94%
6%
92%
88%
4% 4%
10% 2%
Q.77 Select focal areas other than the main focal area to which the NAPA Country Report
(potentially) contributes.
NAPA Country Reports (Enabling Activities) - Focal areas, other than the main
focal area, to which the NAPA Country Reports potentially contribute1
(N=51)
Biodiversity
48
94.12%
Land Degradation
40
78.43%
International Waters
15.69%
Persistant Organic Pollutants (POP)
7.84%
Mercury
0.00%
Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS)
0.00%
1.96%
51
100.00%
Q.78 Overall assessment of NAPA Country Report's alignment with the country's environmental
and sustainable development agendas.
NAPA Country Reports (Enabling Activities) - Overall assessment of NAPA
Country Reports' alignment with the countries' environmental and sustainable
development agendas
Very High: The mainstreaming of NAPA priorities into the country's
environmental and sustainable development agendas is clearly
explained, including an overview of linkages with existing and developing policies,
plans and strategies
40
(N=51)
37
72.55%
sustainable development agendas is mentioned in general terms, but linkages to
specific existing and developing policies, plans and strategies are incomplete or
lacking
sustainable development agendas is not adequately addressed
12
23.53%
1.96%
0.00%
Not: The NAPA does not address ANY linkages between NAPA priorities and the
country's environmental and sustainable development agendas
Unable to Assess
1
1.96%
51 100.00%
Q.79 (Potential) contribution of NAPA Country Report to GEF Global Environmental Benefits
(GEBs).
Potential contribution of the NAPA Country Reports towards GEF Global
Environmental Benefits (GEBs) (N=51)
1. Maintain globally significant biodiversity and
the ecosystem goods and services that it

landscapes.
39%
39%

transboundary water systems and
implementation of the full range of policy,
legal, and institutional reforms and investments
contributing to sustainable use and
31%
29%
6% 8%
25%
22% 10%
27%
4. Support to transformational shifts towards a

low-emission and resilient development path.
4% 4% 20%
5. Increase in phase-out, disposal and reduction

of releases of POPs, ODS, mercury and other
chemicals of global concern.
4% 12%
6. Enhance capacity of countries to implement

MEAs (multilateral environmental agreements)
and mainstream MEAs into national and subnational policy, planning, financial and legal
frameworks.
45%
18%
4%
29%
59%
73%
84%
8%
Not Applicable
41
4.4 Results for the NAPA Implementation Projects

Q.5 Lead implementing agency
(N=229)
NAPA Implementation Projects - Lead implementing agency

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme)
114
49.8%
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme)
36
15.7%
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN)
26
11.4%
AfDB (African Development Bank)
19
8.3%
WBG (World Bank)
16
7.0%
IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development
3.9%
ADB (Asian Development Bank)
2.6%
UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organization)
0.9%
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and

Natural Resources)
0.4%
229
100.0%
Total:
Q.6 Main focal area

(N=229)
NAPA Implementation Projects - Main focal area

Climate Change
218
95.2%
Multi Focal Area
11
4.8%
229
100.0%
Total:
Q.7 Project status

NAPA Implementation Projects - Status
(N=229)
0. Cancelled or dropped
12
5.2%
1. Pending
15
6.6%
2. PM Recommended
26
11.4%
1.3%
4. Council Approved
40
17.5%
5. CEO Endorsed / Approved
19
8.3%
101
44.1%
13
5.7%
229
100.0%
3. PPG Approved
6. Under Implementation
7. Completed
Total:
42
Q.8 Part of GEF replenishment phase

NAPA Implementation Projects Part of GEF replenishment phase
(N=229)
GEF-3
0.9%
GEF-4
43
18.8%
GEF-5
138
60.3%
GEF-6
46
20.1%
229
100.0%
Total:
Project status by GEF replenishment phase.

NAPA Implementation
Projects - Status by GEF
replenishment phase
GEF-3
0. Cancelled or dropped
GEF-4
6
GEF-5
6
2.6%
1. Pending
0.4%
14
2. PM Recommended
0.9%
3. PPG Approved
4. Council Approved
5. CEO Endorsed / Approved
6. Under Implementation
7. Completed
2.6%
GEF-6
26 11.4%
Total (N=229)
12
5.2%
6.1%
15
6.6%
24
10.5%
26
11.4%
0.9%
0.4%
1.3%
35
15.3%
2.2%
40
17.5%
18
7.9%
0.4%
19
8.3%
74
32.3%
0.4%
101
44.1%
13
5.7%
0.9%
11
4.8%
Total by phase:
0.9%
43 18.8%
138
60.3%
46
20.1%
229
100.0%
Total by phase, excl.

cancelled:
0.9%
37 17.1%
132
60.8%
46
21.2%
217
100.0%
Q.9 Main trust fund for funding

(N=229)
NAPA Implementation Projects - Main Trust Fund

LDCF (Least Developed Countries Fund)
MTF (Multi Trust-Fund)
Total:
43
215
93.9%
14
6.1%
229
100.0%
Q.10 Type of in-country executing partner / agency

NAPA Implementation Projects Main in-country executing partner / agency
(N=229)
Government
208
90.8%
Other multilateral non-GEF agency
3.9%
GEF agency
3.1%
Private sector
0.4%
Other partner
0.4%
Unknown
1.3%
229
100.0%
Total:
Q.28 What project type best describes this implementation project?

NAPA Implementation Projects - Types
Implementation Project
MSP
10
FSP
(N=229)
192
83.8%
202
88.2%
Child Implementation Project part of a

Regional Parent
10
4.4%
10
4.4%
Regional Parent Project
12
5.2%
12
5.2%
Global Parent Project

Total:
4.4%
Total
1.3%
0.9%
2.2%
13
5.7%
216
94.3%
229
100.0%
Q.30 The adaptation benefits are clearly described.

Q. 31 The adaptation benefits described are realistic in the country's context.
Q.32 The adaptation benefits are explained in terms of measurable results.
Q.33 The project takes into account potential major risks and includes sufficient risk mitigation
measures.
44
NAPA Implementation Projects - Quality at Entry review (N=116)

The adaptation benefits are clearly
described
96.6%
3.4%
The adaptation benefits described are

realistic in the country's context
92.2%
7.8%
The adaptation benefits are explained

in terms of measurable results
84.5%
12.9% 1.7%
The project takes into account potential

major risks and includes sufficient risk
mitigation measures
89.7%
7.8% 1.7%
Q.34 Probability that the project will deliver tangible adaptation benefits in line with set
objectives.
NAPA Implementation Projects Probability of delivering tangible adaptation benefits
(N=116)1
Very High: The adaptation issues to be addressed are clearly explained, and
adaptation benefits are realistic and measurable. The project baseline is
discussed and all project components take into account existing environmental,
governmental, sectorial and other potential risks, and include risk mitigation
measures.
High: Most of the adaptation issues to be addressed are clearly explained, most
adaptation benefits are realistic though not always measurable. The project
baseline needs improving, as does the risks appreciation and formulation of risk
61
52.6%
53
45.7%
Low: Most of the adaptation issues to be addressed are clearly explained though
the project does not present the most realistic options for the issues identified.
Measurability leaves much to be desired, as does the baseline. Some project
risks have been identified, but risk mitigation measures are mostly absent.
0.9%
Very Low: Adaptation issues as well as the project's adaptation benefits are
poorly described. A baseline is absent and a project risk analysis is lacking.
0.0%
Unable to Assess
0.9%
116
100.0%
Total:
1
Quality at entry review took place for all CEO endorsed / approved or under implementation incountry projects. This included child projects, but excluded the regional and global parents.
45
Probability of delivering tangible adaptation benefits by GEF implementing agency.

NAPA Implementation Projects Probability of delivering tangible
adaptation benefits
UNDP
UNEP
FAO
AfDB
WBG
Very High
35
54.7%
63.6% 5
55.6% 2
22.2%
41.7%
High
29
45.3%
36.4% 3
33.3% 7
77.8%
50.0%
8.3%
Low
11.1%
Very Low
Unable to Assess
Total: 64 100.0% 11 100.0% 9 100.0% 9 100.0% 12 100.0%
Q.38 Co-funding sources.

NAPA Implementation Projects -
NAPA Implementation Projects -
Sources of co-funding, by number

& percentage of times applied
Sources of co-funding as % of total amount
GEF agency
202
88.2%
GEF agency
40.84%
National government
196
85.6%
National government
38.58%
64
27.9%
8.82%
Bilateral aid agency
61
26.6%
Bilateral aid agency
6.70%
CSO / (I)NGO
27
11.8%
Local government
2.45%
Local government
17
7.4%
Other
0.87%
Beneficiaries
12
5.2%
Foundation / Trust fund
0.61%
Private sector
3.9%
CSO / (I)NGO
0.60%
Foundation / Trust fund
1.3%
Private sector
0.45%
Micro-finance institute
0.4%
Micro-finance institute
0.08%
11
4.8%
Beneficiaries
Other, namely:
Total:
229 100.0%
Q.41 Any indication of delays?

NAPA Implementation Projects Delays identified?
(N=217)1
Yes
45
20.7%
No
172
79.3%
217
100.0%
Total:
1
46
0.00%
100%
Delays by GEF replenishment phase.

NAPA Implementation Projects Delays identified?
No (N=217)1
Yes
GEF-3
0.0%
GEF-4
28
75.7%
GEF-5
16
116
12.1%
GEF-6
45
2.2%
45
172
217
Total:
1
Q.44 Choose primary NAPA priorities addressed.

NAPA Implementation Projects - Priority areas addressed1
(N=217)2
158
72.8%
134
61.8%
131
60.4%
NRM; fragile ecosystems (incl. mountain ecosystems, mangroves,

forestry, wildlife, land degradation and management)
120
55.3%
110
50.7%
103
47.5%
Climate education
101
46.5%
55
25.3%
Coastal zone management (other than mangrove

ecosystems/reconstruction)
54
24.9%
Institutional Capacity Building3
41
18.9%
Tourism
20
9.2%
Human health
18
8.3%
12
5.5%
12
5.5%
4.1%
Other, please specify4

Total:
1
The 'institutional capacity building' category came from the 'other' answer category
Included 'technology transfer', 'adaptation mainstreaming', 'financial risk

management' and 'weather insurance'
47
217
Primary NAPA priorities by implementing agency.

NAPA Implementation
Projects - Priority Areas
Identfied1 2
Agriculture
Water resource
management
NRM; fragile ecosystems
Climate education
Sustainable rural livelihoods
Coastal zone management
Tourism
Human health
Renewable energy / energy
efficiency / energy security
Other, please specify
Total:
1
UNDP
UNEP
FAO
AfDB
WBG
75
69.4% 22
66.7% 25
96.2% 14
73.7% 10
71.4%
59
54.6% 21
63.6% 13
50.0% 15
78.9% 11
78.6%
78
55
64
59
43
30
28
10
9
72.2%
50.9%
59.3%
54.6%
39.8%
27.8%
25.9%
9.3%
8.3%
19
24
13
15
20
8
8
4
3
57.6% 15
72.7% 18
39.4% 9
45.5% 3
60.6% 14
24.2% 7
24.2% 6
12.1% 2
9.1%
57.7% 5
69.2% 8
34.6% 8
11.5% 10
53.8% 11
26.9% 3
23.1% 4
7.7% 1
6
26.3% 7
42.1% 9
42.1% 11
52.6% 4
57.9% 5
15.8% 4
21.1% 5
5.3% 3
31.6%
50.0%
64.3%
78.6%
28.6%
35.7%
28.6%
35.7%
21.4%
4.6%
3.0%
5.3%
4.6%
9.1%
5.3%
28
25.9%
27.3%
15.8%
10
8
100.0
26
%
100.0% 33
19.2%
100.0
19
%
14.3%
14.3%
100.0
14
%
100.0
%
Included 'institutional capacity building', technology transfer', 'adaptation mainstreaming',

'financial risk management' and 'weather insurance'.
Q.45 Alignment of NAPA Implementation Project with UNFCCC guidance and decisions.
See figure on the following page. The correlation coefficient between the data set of this
question for NAPA Country Reports and NAPA Implementation Projects is r = 0.92.
Q.46 Alignment of NAPA Implementation Project with GEF adaptation strategic pillars.
Q.47 Alignment of NAPA Implementation Project with GEF adaptation strategic objectives.
See figure on the following pages. The correlation coefficient between the data set of this
48
Alignment of NAPA Implementation Projects with UNFCCC guidance and decisions

(N=217)
1. In support of country-driven capacity-building
activities
96%
3% 0.46%
2. Supporting the development and implementation

of NAPAs / NAPA Implementation Projects
96%
2% 1%
3. A country-driven learning-by-doing process, in line

with national priorities
95%
4% 1%
4. Cost-effective and complementary to other funding

sources
80%
9% 12%
5. With a focus on urgency and immediacy of adapting

to the adverse effects of climate change, and with a
prioritization of activities
86%
8% 6%
6. Promoting the integration of adaptation measures

in national development and poverty reduction
strategies, plans or policies
90%
6% 4%
7. With a view to increasing resilience to the adverse

effects of climate change
97%
1% 1%
Alignment of NAPA Implementation Projects with GEF adaptation strategic pillars

(N=217)
1. Integrating climate change adaptation into relevant
policies, plans, programs and decision-making
processes in a continuous, progressive and iterative
manner as a means to identify and address short-,
89%
2. Expanding synergies with other GEF focal areas.
64%
49
6% 4%
19%
17%
Alignment of NAPA Implementation Projects with GEF adaptation strategic

objectives (N=217)
96%
2% 2%

97%
3% 0.47%

adaptation into relevant policies,
plans and associated processes.
90%
7% 3%
Q.48 Select focal areas other than the main focal area to which the NAPA Implementation
Project (potentially) contributes.
NAPA Implementation Projects - Focal areas, other than
the main focal area, to which the NAPA Implementation
Projects potentially contribute1
(N=217)2
Land Degradation
125
57.6%
Biodiversity
101
46.5%
13
6.0%
Mercury
0.9%
Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS)
0.9%
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP)
0.9%
67
30.9%
217
100.0%

Total:
1
2

50
Focal areas, other than the main focal area, by GEF replenishment phase.
Focal areas by GEF
replenishment phase1
GEF-3
GEF-4
GEF-5
GEF-6
Total (N=217)2
Land Degradation
20
54.1%
80
60.6% 25
54.3%
125
57.6%
Biodiversity
12
32.4%
71
53.8% 18
39.1%
101
46.5%
5.4%
4.3%
13
6.0%
Mercury
0.0%
0.0% 2
4.3%
0.0%
0.0% 2
4.3%
(ODS)
0.0%
0.0% 2
4.3%
(POP)
NO FOCAL AREAS OTHER THAN
2 100.0% 12 32.4% 34 25.8% 19 41.3%
CLIMATE CHANGE APPLY
Number of projects in GEF
2 100.0% 37 100.0% 132 100.0% 46 100.0%
phase, excl. cancelled projects:
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
67
30.9%
217
100.0%
Percentages per focal area towards the total of the phase.
6.8%
Focal areas, other than the main focal area, by GEF implementing agency.
Focal areas by implementing
UNDP
UNEP
FAO
AfDB
WBG
agency1 2
Land Degradation
54 41.5% 21 63.6% 21 80.8% 11 57.9% 8 57.1%
Biodiversity
41 31.5% 22 66.7% 16 61.5% 7 36.8% 6 42.9%
6
4.6% 2
6.1% 2
7.7% 1
5.3% 1
7.1%
Mercury
1
0.8%
1
0.8%
(ODS)
1
0.8%
(POP)
NO FOCAL AREAS OTHER THAN
41 31.5% 5 15.2% 3 11.5% 7 36.8% 5 35.7%
CLIMATE CHANGE APPLY
Number of projects for
implementing agency, excl. 130 100.0% 33 100.0% 26 100.0% 19 100.0% 14 100.0%
cancelled projects:
1
2

Percentages per focal area towards the total of the agency.
Note that the data is only presented for the top 5 GEF implementing agencies.
51
Q.49 Overall assessment of NAPA Implementation Projects alignment with NAPA priorities.
NAPA Implementation Reports - Overall assessment of NAPA
Implementation Projects' alignment with NAPA Country Report priorities
Very High: The Implementation Projects' outcome areas address
primary priority areas as listed / outlined in the NAPA Country
Report
(N=217)
190
87.56%
High: The Implementation Projects' outcome areas do not address

primary priority areas as listed / outlined in the NAPA Country
Report, but address other priorities that are outlined in the NAPA
Country Report
23
10.60%
Low: The Implementation Projects' might touch upon some priority

areas, but do not address specific priorities as outlined in the NAPA
Country Report in a structural manner
0.92%
Not: The Implementation Projects do not address ANY of the

priorities (primary or other) outlined in the NAPA Country Report
0.00%
Unable to Assess
0.92%
Total, excl. cancelled projects:
217 100.00%
NAPA Implementation Projects alignment with NAPA priorities, by GEF implementing agency.
Probability of delivering
tangible adaptation benefits
by GEF implementing agency
UNDP
UNEP
Very High
95
88.0%
29
High
Low
Very Low
11
10.2%
3
1
1.9%
Unable to Assess
Total:
108 100.0%
FAO
87.9% 22
9.1%
3.0%
3
1
AfDB
WBG
84.6% 17
89.5% 13
11.5%
3.8%
10.5%
92.9%
7.1%
33 100.0% 26 100.0% 19 100.0% 14 100.0%
Q.50 (Potential) contribution of NAPA Implementation Project to GEF Global Environmental

Benefits (GEBs).
52
Potential contribution of NAPA Implementation Projects to GEF Global Environmental

Benefits (GEBs) (N=217)
1. Maintain globally significant biodiversity and
the ecosystem goods and services that it
18% 13%

landscapes.
31%
15%
28%
23%
41%
31%

transboundary water systems and
implementation of the full range of policy, legal,
and institutional reforms and investments
4% 4% 22%
70%
4. Support to transformational shifts towards a

low-emission and resilient development path.
2% 2% 17%
79%
5. Increase in phase-out, disposal and reduction

of releases of POPs, ODS, mercury and other
chemicals of global concern.
1% 4%
6. Enhance capacity of countries to implement

MEAs (multilateral environmental agreements)
and mainstream MEAs into national and subnational policy, planning, financial and legal
11% 12%

95%
36%
40%
Not Applicable
Q.51 Has the Implementation Project indicated risks - including climatic as well as non-climatic
risks - that might prevent the project objectives from being achieved?
NAPA Implementation Projects - Do the NAPA Implementation Projects indicate risks
that might prevent the project objectives from being achieved?
Yes, sufficiently: A sufficiently wide variety of risks, climatic as well as non-climatic,
has been identified, including a description of their potential impact as well as the
probability of each risk materializing within the projects lifetime.
(N=217)
122
56.2%
Yes, but not sufficiently: A selection of risks have been identified, but some risk
factors one would expect in the countrys context have not been mentioned, and
risk impact and/or probability are missing in some instances.
71
32.7%
Yes, but with serious omissions: Some risks have been identified, but a number of
major risk factors are missing. The risk impact is not described for all risks and the
probability is missing for most.
20
9.2%
1.8%
No: There is no clear risk appreciation.
53
Total:
217
100.0%
Q.52 Does the NAPA Implementation Project provide risk mitigation strategies, or actions to be
taken in the case that identified risks would materialize?
NAPA Implementation Projects - Do the NAPA Implementation Projects
provide risk mitigation strategies, or actions to be taken in the case
that identified risks would materialize?
Yes, for all or most
(N=217)
144
66.4%
Yes, for some
38
17.5%
No
35
16.1%
217
100.0%
Total:
Q.53 Does the NAPA Implementation Project include a gender mainstreaming strategy or plan?
Do NAPA Implementation Projects include a
gender mainstreaming strategy or plan?
(N=217)
Yes
No, but its/their development is implied
No
Total:
63
29.0%
103
47.5%
51
23.5%
217
100.0%
Inclusion of a gender mainstreaming strategy or plan by GEF replenishment phase.

Inclusion of a gender
mainstreaming strategy
or plan?
Yes
No, but its/their
No
Total by phase:
1
GEF-3
GEF-4
GEF-5
GEF-6
Total
(N=217)1
8.1%
44
33.3% 16
34.8%
63
29.0%
16
43.2%
61
46.2% 26
56.5%
103
47.5%
2 100.0%
18
48.6%
27
20.5%
8.7%
51
23.5%
2 100.0%
37
100.0%
132 100.0% 46 100.0%
217
100.0%
54
Q.54Does the NAPA Implementation Project incorporate a gender responsive results framework,
including gender disaggregated indicators?
Do NAPA Implementation Projects incorporate
gender responsive results frameworks, including
gender disaggregated indicators?
(N=217)
Yes
68
31.3%
No, but its/their development is implied
99
45.6%
No
50
23.0%
217
100.0%
Total:
Inclusion of gender responsive results frameworks by GEF replenishment phase.

Inclusion of gender responsive
results frameworks.
Yes
No, but its/their development
is implied
No
Total by phase:
1
GEF-3
GEF-4
GEF-5
Total (N=217)1
GEF-6
18.9%
56
42.4%
10.9%
68
31.3%
17
45.9%
51
38.6%
31
67.4%
99
45.6%
2 100.0%
13
35.1%
25
18.9%
10
21.7%
50
23.0%
2 100.0%
37 100.0%
132
100.0%
46 100.0%
217
100.0%
Q.55 Overall assessment of Implementation Projects inclusion of the gender component.

Overall assessment of NAPA Implementation Projects' inclusion of the gender
component
(N=217)
Gender-blind: Project does not demonstrate awareness of the set of roles, rights,
16
7.4%
Gender-aware: Project recognizes the economic/social/political roles, rights,

entitlements, responsibilities, obligations and power relations socially assigned to
men and women, but at times works around existing gender differences and
inequalities.
71
32.7%
Gender-sensitive: Project adopts gender sensitive methodologies (a gender

analysis is undertaken, gender disaggregated data are collected, gender sensitive
indicators are integrated in monitoring and evaluation) to address gender
differences and promote gender equality.
99
45.6%
55
Gender-mainstreamed: Project ensures that gender perspectives and attention

to the goal of gender equality are central to most, if not all, activities. It assesses
the implications for women and men of any planned action, including legislation,
policies or programs, in any area and at all levels.
30
13.8%
Gender-transformative: Project facilitates a critical examination' of gender

norms, roles, and relationships; strengthened or created systems that support
gender equity; and/or questioned and changed gender norms and dynamics.
0.5%
Not gender-relevant: Gender plays no role in the planned intervention. (Note

that in practice it is rare for projects to not have any gender relevance. If a project
touches upon the lives of people, either directly or indirectly, it has gender
relevance).
0.0%
217
100.0%
Overall assessment of inclusion of the gender component, by GEF replenishment phase.

Assessment of inclusion of
the gender component, by
GEF replenishment phase
GEF-3
GEF-4
GEF-5
GEF-6
Total
(N=217)
14
6.5%
Gender-blind
16.2%
6.1%
Gender-aware
13
35.1%
43
32.6%
15
32.6%
71
32.7%
Gender-sensitive
17
45.9%
59
44.7%
23
50.0%
99
45.6%
2.7%
21
15.9%
17.4%
30
13.8%
0.8%
0.5%
0.9%
217
100.0%
Gender-mainstreamed
Gender-transformative
Not gender-relevant
Total by phase:
2 100.0%
2 100.0% 37 100.0%
132 100.0%
46 100.0%
Q.56 Identify the Implementation Project's alignment with the following catalytic effects;
(1) PUBLIC GOOD: The project developed or introduced new technologies and/or approaches
(CE1).
(2) DEMONSTRATION: Demonstration sites and/or training was implemented to further
catalyze the new technologies / approaches (CE2).
(3) REPLICATION: Activities, demonstrations, and/or techniques are repeated within or outside
the project (CE3).
(4) SCALING-UP: Approaches developed through the project are taken up on a regional/
national scale, becoming widely accepted (CE4).
56
NAPA Implementation Projects' alignment with the following catalytic effects (N=13)
1. PUBLIC GOOD: The project
developed or introduced new
technologies and/or approaches
(CE1).
77%
2. DEMONSTRATION: Demonstration
sites and/or training was
implemented to further catalyze the
new technologies / approaches (CE2).
8% 15%
69%
3. REPLICATION: Activities,
demonstrations, and/or techniques
are repeated within or outside the
project (CE3).
46%
4. SCALING-UP: Approaches
developed through the project are
taken up on a regional/ national
scale, becoming widely accepted
(CE4).
0%15% 15%
15%
23%
15% 8%

15%
62%
15%
Not Applicable
Q.57 Identify the NAPA Implementation Projects alignment with the following catalytic effects,
identified in terminal evaluations as being catalytic elements of the project;
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Project generated significant social, economic, cultural and human well-being co-benefits.
Project built on the traditional knowledge and practices of local communities.
The project had impact on multiple sectors and at different levels of society.
Project built foundations for larger scale project(s) through analytic work, assessments and
capacity building activities.
(5) The project was instrumental in developing longer-term partnerships.
(6) Project was successful in developing new cost sharing approaches / leveraging new
resources.
(7) Project improved management effectiveness of adaptation-relevant (sub-)national systems.
57
NAPA Implementation Projects' alignment with the following catalytic effects (N=13)
1. Project generated significant
social, economic, cultural and
human well-being co-benefits.
2. Project built on the traditional
knowledge and practices of local
communities.
46%
23%
3. The project had impact on

multiple sectors and at different
levels of society.
8%
38%
15%
46%
4. Project built foundations for

larger scale project(s) through
analytic work, assessments and
capacity building activities.
69%
5. The project was instrumental in

developing longer-term
partnerships.
38%
46%
8%
23%
38%
15%
15%
15% 8%
6. Project was successful in

developing new cost sharing
approaches / leveraging new
resources.
8%
7. Project improved management

effectiveness of adaptation-relevant
(sub-)national systems.
38%
23%
8%
38%
38%
8%
Not Applicable
31%
54%
Q.60 What is the NAPA Implementation Projects outcome rating according to the Terminal
Evaluation Review (TER)?
Q.61 What is the NAPA Implementation Projects sustainability rating according to the TER?
Q.62-Q.63 What is the NAPA Implementation Projects M&E design at entry rating according to
the TER?
Q.64-Q.65 What is the NAPA Implementation Projects M&E plan implementation rating
according to the TER?
See table on the following two pages for the answers on Q.60 to Q.65.
58
LDCF
Funding
1
(M$)
Agency
Project Title
Country
2040
UNDP
Technical Assistance to Least Developed

Countries (LDCs) to Implement the
UNFCCC8/CP8 Decision
Global
0.69
2191
UNDP
Global
0.34
3219
2013
UNDP
Bhutan
3.99
HS
HS
3319
2014
UNDP
Niger
3.80
ML
MU
3358
2014
UNDP
Integrating Climate Change Risks into the

Agriculture and Health Sectors in Samoa
(ICCRAHS) Project
Samoa
2.25
MS
ML
MS
3404
2014
UNDP
Promoting Climate Resilient Water

Management and Agriculture Practice in
Rural Cambodia
Cambodia
2.14
ML
MS
Sudan
3.74
MU
MU
MU
Cabo
Verde
3.41
MS
ML
3430
2015
UNDP

Interventions to Build Resilience in the
Agriculture and Water Sectors to the
Adverse Impacts of Climate Change
3581
2014
UNDP
Building Adaptive Capacity and Resilience

to Climate Change in the Water Sector in
Cabo Verde
59
Sustainability
3
rating
M&E plan
implementation
3
rating
AER
Technical Assistance to Francophone

LDCs to Implement the UNFCCC8/CP8
Decision
Reducing Climate Change-induced Risks
and Vulnerabilities from Glacial Lake
Outbursts in the Punakha-Wangdi and
Chamkhar Valleys
Interventions to Build Resilience and
Adaptive Capacity of the Agriculture
Sector to Climate Change
Outcome
2
rating
M&E design
at entry
3
rating
GEF
ID
GEF
ID
AER
Agency
3684
2014
UNDP
3689
2015
UNDP
3718
2015
UNDP
3728
2015
UNEP
3838
2015
UNDP
/
UNEP
Project Title
Strengthening Adaptation Capacities

and Reducing the Vulnerability to
Climate Change in Burkina Faso
Adaptation to the effects of climate
variability and change in agroecological regions I and II in Zambia
(CCAP)
Building the Capacity of the
Agriculture Sector in DR Congo to
Plan for and Respond to the
Additional Threats Posed by Climate
Change on Food Production and
Security
Strengthening of The Gambias
Climate Change Early Warning
Systems
Reducing Vulnerability to Climate
Change by Establishing Early Warning
and Disaster Preparedness Systems
and Support for Integrated
Watershed Management in Flood
Prone Areas
Country
LDCF
Funding
1
(M$)
Outcome
2
rating
Sustainability
3
rating
M&E design
at entry
3
rating
M&E plan
implementation
3
rating
Burkina
Faso
3.30
MU
MS
MS
Zambia
3.77
MU
Congo
DR
3.41
ML
MU
UA
Gambia
1.16
ML
MU
MU
Rwanda
3.99
Total LDCF-related project funding, including PPG, Agency Fees and LDCF funding.
GEF/GEF Agency six-point rating scale: Highly Satisfactory (HS), Satisfactory (S), Moderately Satisfactory (MS), Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU), Unsatisfactory (U), and Highly
Unsatisfactory (HU).
3
GEF/GEF Agency four-point rating scale: Likely (L), Moderately Likely (ML), Moderately Unlikely (MU), and Unlikely (U). Alternatively, the rating might be Unable to Assess (UA).
60
ANNEX 5: OVERVIEW OF INTERVIEWEES

Name
Organization
Function
Adam Starr
Adrienne Stork
Environmental Protection Agency

Sierra Leone
IUCN, Lao PDR
UNEP, Haiti
Akhteruzzaman Sano
GEF CSO Network, Cambodia
Monitoring and Evaluation

Manager and Council member
Country Director
Environment Project Manager
South East Asia Regional Focal
Point
Abdul Bakarr Salim
Alain Craan
Alcie Benito
Alerte Berthony
Alexandre Junior
Alioune Badara Kaere
Anders Poulsen
Departmental office of Environment,

Environmental Ministry in the South
Department, Haiti
Organization of Women of Frangipane
(OFFD), Haiti
Organization of Farmers for the
Development of Fonds des Blancs
(OPDF), Haiti
FAO, Haiti
UNDP, Senegal
Ministry of Natural Resources and
Environment, Lao PDR
Assistant
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Agricultural Technician
Chief Technical Advisor
Anders Wallberg
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sweden
Head of Section, and Council

Member
Annacasis Joseph
Benjamin
FAO, Haiti
Communal Agronomist
Anne Sophie Poisot

Arcen Bastien
Archild Jonas
Augustin Marie
Germitha
Barney Dickson
Blanc Lovigens
Bruce Dunn
Cange Rogel
FAO, Farmer Field Schools Team, Plant

Production and Protection Division
Departmental Office of the
East, Jacmel, Haiti
Department, Haiti
Comit GRD (Groupe de Recherches
Pour le Dveloppement) Grand-Goave,
Haiti
UNEP
(OPDF), Haiti
ADB
Watershed management Commitee of
Levque, Haiti
61
Programme Officer
Departmental Director
Assistant
Staff
acting CCA portfolio manager
Beneficiary
Senior Environmental Specialist
Secretary
Name
Cassandra De Young
Cheng Pov
Chitlatda
Keomuongchanh
Chizuru Aoki
Claire Van der Vaeren
Organization
Function
FAO, Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy

Division
Department of Water Resources and
Meteorology (PDOWRAM) Preah
Vihear Provincial, Cambodia
Fishery Planning Analyst

Staff
UNDP, Lao PDR
Program Officer
GEF Secretariat
Lead Environmental Specialist

UN Resident Coordinator and
UNDP Resident Representative
UN/UNDP, Cambodia
Estibalitz Morras
Ministry of the Environment,

Directorate of Climate Change,
Project Administrator
Government of Haiti
Mouvement Progressiste Port-Salutain
Representative
(MOPROPS), Haiti
Thematic Specialist on
World Bank
programming side LDCF, SCCF,
AF
ENDA, Senegal
Civil Society actor
Senior Operations Officer,
World Bank
Operations and Procedure
UNDP, Haiti
Project Coordinator Adaptation
Assistant
Department, Haiti
Ministry of Economics and Finance,
Directorate of Economic Studies,
Macroeconomic Advisor
Government of Haiti
Director
Department, Haiti
Association des Jeunes Manoirs de
Coordinator
Bainet (AJMB), Haiti
South east office of DINEPA (National
office of drinking water and
Engineer
sanitation), Haiti
CEPADEP, Haiti
Nursery Gardener
IFAD
Adaptation Specialist
Previous GEF CCA portfolio
UNEP
manager
IFAD
GEF Portfolio Officer
Farhan Akhtar
U.S. Department of State
Desir Joselyne
Dieu Donne Picard
Dinara Besekei Sutton
Djime Nanasta
Dominique Isabelle
Kayser
Dorine Jean-Paul
Edes Charles Philippe
Edouard Nsimba
Elancie Moise
Elysee Pierre
Emmanuel Michel
Eribert Faubert
Eric Patrick
Ermira Fida
62
Foreign Affairs Officer and

Council Member
Name
Felix Elysee
Fidel Burin
Organization
Function

Department, Haiti
Staff
Technician
Frits M.J. Ohler
FAO Haiti
Resident Representative
Genevieve Braun
FAO-GEF Coordination Unit
Program Officer
Gerald Neuvieme
UNDP, Haiti
Gianluca Gondolini
FAO Haiti
Gianluca Gondolini
FAO, Haiti
H.E. Loh Heal
Ministry of Environment, Cambodia
Hok Kimthourn
UNDP, Cambodia
Isaac Mulet
Mouvement Progressiste Port-Salutain

Representative
(MOPROPS), Haiti
Jean Jacques Janvier

Jean Ked Neptune
Jean Louis Julien
Jean Louis Milio
Jeanne Jocelaine
Bonnet
Jean-Pierre Moise
CAEPA (Drinking water supply and

sanitation committee), Haiti
Department, Haiti
Ministry of Agriculture, Government
of Haiti
Government of Haiti
Project Officer, Ecosystembased Adaptation

Project Coordinator and
Project Coordinator and
GEF Operational Focal Point
and Technical Director General,
General Directorate of
Environmental Protection
Former National Project
Coordinator
Member
Project Coordinator
Staff
Staff
Focal Point
Operational Focal Point
Jeff Griffin
Technical Officer
Jeffrey Griffin
FAO, GEF Unit
Senior Coordinator
Jens Erik Lyngby
UNEP, Cambodia
Senior Technical Advisor
Jonia Joseph Noel
UNDP, Haiti
Technical Project Assistant
63
Name
Organization
Function
Jude Alain Louis

Government of Haiti
Economist
Juergen Hierold
UNIDO
Julie Parquette
OXFAM, Haiti
Kaarina Immonen
UNDP, Lao PDR
Karin Shepardson
World Bank
Kelly West
UNEP
UNDP Global Environmental Finance
Unit, Bangkok, Thailand
Environment Quality Promotion
Department (EDQP), Ministry of
Natural Resources Environment
(MONRE), Lao PDR
Keti Chachibai
Khampadith
Khammounhueng
Khoem Sanith
Knut Roland Sundstrom
Kuena Morebotsane
Laurent Granier
Lefene Gustave
GEF Secretariat
World Bank
South east office of DINEPA (National
office of drinking water and
sanitation), Haiti
GEF Coordinator and Division

Chief, Environment
Partnerships Division
Representative
Resident Coordinator United
Nations and UNDP Resident
Representative
Program Manager, Executive
Coordinator for GEF and MP
Programs
GEF portfolio manager
Regional Technical Advisor
Director, and GEF Operational
Focal Point
Tuolkoki Commune chief,
Cambodia
Climate Change Specialist
Technical Officer
Senior Environmental Specialist
Administrator
Agriculture Agent, Kulen
District, Cambodia
Lim Bora
Lormil Louissant
APDTGG (Association des Paysans

pour le Dveloppement de Teno
Grand Gove), Grand-Goave, Haiti
Staff
Mahamat Assouyouti
AfDB
Senior Climate Change

Specialist in GEF Coordination
Unit
Margaret Jones
Williams
UNDP, Lao PDR
Environment Unit Manager
Marie Helene Armona

Levque, Haiti
Treasurer
Mariline Diara
Government of Senegal
GEF Focal Point, Senegal
Martine Therer
UNDP, Haiti
Deputy Country Director
64
Name
Organization
Function
Mathurin Joseph
Wilfrid
CEP (Champs-coles-paysans) unit of

Faucher, Haiti
Representative
Maude Veyret Picot
Technical Officer
Maxeau Pinchinat
Association des Irrigants de Fauch

(AIFA), Haiti
President
Maximilien Pardo y
Fernandez
UNEP, Haiti
Country Program Coordinator
Meas Rithy
UNEP, Cambodia
Deputy Project Coordinator
Michbordy Jules
Milienne Mombrun
Mom Samoeun
Mong Samol
Morakot Vongxay

Department, Haiti
Association des Cadres pour la
Protection de l Environnement
(ACAPE), Haiti
Farmers Water User Committee
Farmer (FWUC), Cambodia
Department of Woman Affairs, Preah
Vihear Province, Cambodia
Department of International
Cooperation, Lao PDR
Assistant
Representative
Leader
Director
Director for UN Division
Programme Officer, National
Adaptation Plans and Policy,
Adaptation Programme
Motsomi Maletjane
UNFCCC Secretariat
Mouhamadou Bamba
Diop
FAO, Senegal
Khamphu, Mr.
DAFO, Lao PDR
Head
Phanga, Mr.
PAFO, Lao PDR
Rithirak Long
Bounsauy, Mrs.
PAFO, Lao PDR
Technical Staff
GEF Political Focal Point,
Deputy Director General,
General Directorate of
Environmental Protection
Technical Staff
Guene, Mrs.
Government of Senegal
Phonesavanh, Mrs.
PAFO, Lao PDR
Deputy Head of Agriculture

Section
Sarr, Mrs.
Naoko Ishii
GEF Secretariat
CEO
Napoleon Navarro
UNDP, Cambodia
Senior Policy Advisor
65
Name
Natham Wilson
Natharoun Ngo
Organization
Function

(OPDF), Haiti
UNDP, Cambodia
Ngouy Yoeun
Noe Fleurant
Ouk Samboeung
Pan Sokhoeun
Paul Jackson
Pen Pichponnareay
Phearanich Hing
Phouvong
Luangxaysana
Pierre Adam
Pierre Lelievre
Pierre Micheline
Poeung Tryda
OXFAM, Haiti
Department of Woman Affairs, Preah
Farmers Water User Committee
Farmer (FWUC), Cambodia
Bureau Agricole Communal, Haiti
Department of Agriculture, Preah
UNDP, Cambodia
Government of Haiti
Levque, Haiti
Department of Agriculture, Preah
Beneficiary
Head of Program Unit
Agriculture Agent, Kulen
District, Cambodia
Representative
Deputy Director
Leader
Director
Office Chief
Climate Change Policy Analyst
Director General, and UNFCCC
Focal Point
General Director
President
Staff
Director
Pradeep Kurukulasuriya
UNDP Global Environmental Finance

Unit, Bangkok, Thailand
Project Coordinators
UNDP, Senegal
Project Focal Point
UNDP, Senegal
Ratana Norng
UNDP, Cambodia
Programme Analyst
Rawleston Moore
GEF Secretariat
Senior Climate Change

Specialist and Adaptation
Coordinator
Rigaud Tresor
CAEPA (Drinking water supply and

sanitation committee), Haiti
Member
66
Head of Unit
Name
Rodeney Ludger
Rolner Colin
Romei Troissou
Organization
Function
Comit GRD (Groupe de Recherches

Pour le Dveloppement) GrandGoave, Haiti
East, Jacmel, Haiti
Government of Haiti
Staff
Project Facilitator
Assistant Director
Sejour Charleme
Haiti
Beneficiary of private water

connection
Sene Benjamin
FAO, Haiti
Communal Agronomist
Sophea Khun
FAO, Cambodia
Gender Specialist
Sreng Sophal
UNEP, Cambodia
Livelihoods Coordinator
Stacy Crevello
FAO, Cambodia
Chief Technical Advisor
Stefano Mondovi
FAO, Farmer Field Schools Team, Plant

Production and Protection Division
Programme Officer
Stephen Rudgard
FAO, Lao PDR
Representative
Small Scale Integrated Farming
System (IFS), Savings and
livestock revolving fund
representative
Director of Legislation and
Coordination Division
Suon Non
Department of Agriculture, Cambodia
Syamphone
Sengchandala

Thavong Inthavong
Agriculture Research Centre for

Climate Change, Lao PDR
Director
Thy Sum
Director of Climate Change

Department
Vanthong Phengvichit
NAFRI, Lao PDR
Deputy Director General
Vanxay Bouttanovong

Director Division of Climate

Change Adaptation, and Project
Manager
Viengxai Manivong
Department of Hydrometeorology,
Head of Planning and

Cooperation Division
Vipaka Halsacda
IRAS project, Lao PDR
Vuthy Lic
Ministry of Water Resources and

Meteorology
67
Former Assistant Project

Manager
National Management
Specialist Early Warning System
Name
Organization
Function
Weben's Pierre Louis

Decius
OXFAM, Haiti
Representative
Wilner Louis
Wilson Noel
Association des Cadres pour la

Protection de l Environnement
(ACAPE), Haiti
East, Jacmel, Haiti
Representative
Field Technician
Peam Krasoap Commune chief,
Cambodia
Program Manager, Energy and
Environment Unit
Yem Yan
Yves-Andre Wainwright
UNDP, Haiti
Yvon Guerrier
UNDP-Environment unit, Frangipane,

Haiti
68
M&E officer
ANNEX 6: CORE GENDER INDICATORS

Outcomes
Project design fully
integrates gender
concerns.
Project implementation
ensures gender
equitable participation
in and benefit from
project activities.
Project monitoring and

evaluation give
adequate attention to
gender mainstreaming.
Gender Indicators
Source of Verification
1. Percentage of projects that have

conducted gender analysis during
project preparation.
Project Document at CEO

endorsement
2. Percentage of projects that have

incorporated gender responsive
project results framework (e.g.
gender responsive output, outcome,
indicator, budget, etc).
3. Share of women and men as direct
beneficiaries of project.
4. Share of convention related national
reports incorporated gender
dimensions (e.g. NBSAP, NAPA/NAP,
TDA/SAP, etc.).
5. Percentage of monitoring and
evaluation reports (e.g. Project
Implementation Reports, Mid-term
Evaluation Reports, and Terminal
Evaluation Reports) that
incorporates gender
equality/womens empowerment
issues and assess results/progress.
69
Project Implementation
Reports, Mid-Term
Evaluation Reports, and
Terminal Evaluation Reports.
Project Implementation
Reports (PIR), Mid-Term
Evaluation Reports, and
Terminal Evaluation Reports
(TER).

LDCF Program Evaluation 2016 W Annexes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LDCF Program Evaluation 2016 W Annexes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

20th LDCF/SCCF Council Meeting

June 09, 2016

PROGRAM EVALUATION OF THE LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES FUND

Recommended Council Decision

Background of the LDCF......................................................................................................... 1

Approach and Methodology .................................................................................................. 6

Theory of Change and Methods .................................................................................................. 6

Analysis of the LDCF Portfolio .............................................................................................. 15

Portfolio Composition and Evolution ........................................................................................ 15

Relevance of LDCF Support .................................................................................................. 21

Effectiveness and Efficiency of the LDCF ............................................................................. 29

Effectiveness in Achieving Objectives ....................................................................................... 29

Figure 1: Distribution of LDCF Financing and Projects by GEF Agency ........................................... 5

Table 14: Identification of Delays in NAPA Implementation Projects .......................................... 34

BACKGROUND OF THE LDCF

Box 1: IPCC Definitions of Key Terms

FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, Decision 2/CP.7, Annex B, par. 9, and Annex D, par.22:

FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, Decision 5/CP.7 and Decision 7/CP.7, par.6: Support the

FCCC/CP/2003/6/Add.1, Decision 4/CP.9, par.1a: Support preparation of National

FCCC/CP/2003/6/Add.1, Decision 6/CP.9, pars. 2 and 3: Support the implementation

FCCC/CP/2003/6/Add.1, Decision 6/CP.9, par. 3 and FCCC/CP/2005/5/Add.1, Decision

FCCC/CP/2005/5/Add.1, Decision 3/CP.11, par. 1 b-c: (b) Supporting the

FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1, Decision 1/CP.16, par. 15: Establish a process to formulate

FCCC/CP/2012/8/Add.2, Decision 12/CP.18, par. 1: To provide funding from the Least

UNFCCC overview Non-Annex I national communications.

% of total LDCF project funding

% of total LDCF project portfolio

APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

Figure 2: Theory of Change of the LDCF

Box 3: GEF Strategic Objectives and Pillars

Strengthen institutional and technical capacities for effective climate change

Expanding synergies with other GEF focal areas.

NAPA implementation projects

Total, excl. cancelled or dropped:

Total, from Council approved to

Table 2: Inclusion of NAPA Implementation Projects according to Project Status

Approved, but not under

climate change awareness. LDCF portfolios tended to be quite relevant to national

IEO, The Fifth Overall Performance Study (OPS5), May 2014.

ANALYSIS OF THE LDCF PORTFOLIO

Budgetary allocation (1,000 $)

LDCF Portfolio by GEF Replenishment Phase

NAPA implementation projects

Figure 3: Distribution of LDCF Projects by GEF Replenishment Phase

% of total LDCF project funding

LDCF Projects and Funding by Agency

Figure 4: Distribution of LDCF Financing and Co-financing by GEF Agency

As % of total LDCF funding

% of total LDCF co-finance leveraged

Figure 5: Co-Finance Share as Percentage of Project Budget by GEF Agency

Figure 7: LDCF Projects' grant value by region (1,000 $)

Project Status and Portfolio Status

NAPA implementation projects

Total value for projects that

RELEVANCE OF LDCF SUPPORT

Figures exclude cancelled and dropped projects.

Relevance in Relation to COP Guidance and Decisions of the UNFCCC

2. Expanding synergies with other GEF focal

From a large to an extremely large extent

From a small to an extremely small extent

2. Expanding synergies with other GEF focal areas.

From a large to an extremely large extent

From a small to an extremely small extent