level to generate data; lack of systematic efforts to conduct “end-of-project”
evaluations and perhaps most importantly: the time horizon. Whereas GEF projects
on average take no longer than 5 years, environmental change may take decades
before it becomes measurable (ICF 2005, 22). However, OPS3 noted with muted
optimism that monitoring and evaluation had become more important in the GEF
and there was evidence of growing harmonization of goals and processes across the
GEF (ICF 2005, 12). We will see these themes return in other organizations and
their evaluations.
The Climate Investment Funds (CIF), initiated in 2008, were set up to overcome
two obstacles that the GEF had to face: slow procedures and fragmentation of
funding. The GEF had to spread its contributions over a large group of countries
(more than 150) and not just in climate change, but in other priority areas such as
biodiversity, international waters and persistent organic pollutants. The slow implementation of GEF interventions, also led to time delays in achieving impact, while
time is of the essence in the fight against climate change. The CIF would focus on a
relatively small number of countries, to enable it to provide higher levels of
funding, “potentially allowing greater impact” (ICF 2014, viii) and it would
apply a “light touch” approach to ensure quick decision making – relying on the
multilateral development banks to provide the technical expertise to design, review
and implement projects. However, up to May 2014 only a small proportion – about
9 % – of the approved funding had been disbursed to action on the ground (ICF, vii).
The evaluation notes in 2014 that “most CIF projects are still on the drawing board
or in early execution” (ICF, viii) and thus the effort to speed up procedures in
comparison to the GEF largely failed. Failure to overcome the second barrier of
insufficient funding to achieve longer term impact cannot yet be ascertained: the
question cannot yet be answered.
Yet “transformative impact is a major goal of the CIF, and a justifiable one”
(ICF, x). The evaluation notes that CIF resources, even though more focused and
considerably higher than the GEF’s in its partner countries, “are small relative to
global needs”, so they need to be focused on countries and on activities where they
will be able to support transformative change. However, the evaluation also notes
that many of the CIFs activities lack a convincing theory of change that provides a
clear picture of how broader adoption would be achieved. On the positive side the
evaluation commends the CIF for its learning and piloting objectives, and notes the
“vast potential” for providing knowledge on how countries can respond to the
challenge of climate change (ICF, xii).
The evaluations of climate change efforts of the World Bank Group go back in
time from 2009 (when the first study was published) to 2012 (when the third report
was published on the IEG website). They refer to a much broader and older
portfolio of activities that the Bank implemented, many of which were undertaken
with co-funding from the GEF. The longer term impact on several areas of work
could be evaluated. However, the primary focus of many interventions was often on
aspects such as support for energy policies, deforestation, low carbon technologies,
and adaptation, and differed in how they related to climate change. The emerging
picture is thus less straight-forward than the GEF assessment. Nevertheless, the
18
R.D. van den Berg and L. Cando-Noordhuizen
evaluations and perhaps most importantly: the time horizon. Whereas GEF projects
on average take no longer than 5 years, environmental change may take decades
before it becomes measurable (ICF 2005, 22). However, OPS3 noted with muted
optimism that monitoring and evaluation had become more important in the GEF
and there was evidence of growing harmonization of goals and processes across the
GEF (ICF 2005, 12). We will see these themes return in other organizations and
their evaluations.
The Climate Investment Funds (CIF), initiated in 2008, were set up to overcome
two obstacles that the GEF had to face: slow procedures and fragmentation of
funding. The GEF had to spread its contributions over a large group of countries
(more than 150) and not just in climate change, but in other priority areas such as
biodiversity, international waters and persistent organic pollutants. The slow implementation of GEF interventions, also led to time delays in achieving impact, while
time is of the essence in the fight against climate change. The CIF would focus on a
relatively small number of countries, to enable it to provide higher levels of
funding, “potentially allowing greater impact” (ICF 2014, viii) and it would
apply a “light touch” approach to ensure quick decision making – relying on the
multilateral development banks to provide the technical expertise to design, review
and implement projects. However, up to May 2014 only a small proportion – about
9 % – of the approved funding had been disbursed to action on the ground (ICF, vii).
The evaluation notes in 2014 that “most CIF projects are still on the drawing board
or in early execution” (ICF, viii) and thus the effort to speed up procedures in
comparison to the GEF largely failed. Failure to overcome the second barrier of
insufficient funding to achieve longer term impact cannot yet be ascertained: the
question cannot yet be answered.
Yet “transformative impact is a major goal of the CIF, and a justifiable one”
(ICF, x). The evaluation notes that CIF resources, even though more focused and
considerably higher than the GEF’s in its partner countries, “are small relative to
global needs”, so they need to be focused on countries and on activities where they
will be able to support transformative change. However, the evaluation also notes
that many of the CIFs activities lack a convincing theory of change that provides a
clear picture of how broader adoption would be achieved. On the positive side the
evaluation commends the CIF for its learning and piloting objectives, and notes the
“vast potential” for providing knowledge on how countries can respond to the
challenge of climate change (ICF, xii).
The evaluations of climate change efforts of the World Bank Group go back in
time from 2009 (when the first study was published) to 2012 (when the third report
was published on the IEG website). They refer to a much broader and older
portfolio of activities that the Bank implemented, many of which were undertaken
with co-funding from the GEF. The longer term impact on several areas of work
could be evaluated. However, the primary focus of many interventions was often on
aspects such as support for energy policies, deforestation, low carbon technologies,
and adaptation, and differed in how they related to climate change. The emerging
picture is thus less straight-forward than the GEF assessment. Nevertheless, the
18
R.D. van den Berg and L. Cando-Noordhuizen