Table 2.1
Evaluative evidence on progress towards global impact in seven comprehensive evaluations
Comparison of conclusions of 2014 comprehensive evaluations on climate change
Evaluation
Coherent
portfolio
Mature
portfolio
GHG
measurement Efficiency
Effectiveness
Direct impact at
programme level
Global level impact
GEF – OPS5 Yes
Yes
Yes
Low
High
Evidence of higher level
impact, yet trends continue to decline
Insufficient funding versus subsidies
for non-sustainable use of natural
resources
CIF
Yes
No
Data not
always
comparable
Low
Not
evaluated
Not evaluated
Resources are small compared to
global needs; focus on transformation
yet many activities lack a clear pathway towards impact; learning potential
yet unfulfilled
IDB/OVE
No
Yes
Data not
always
comparable
Not
evaluated
High
Problems of aggregation Not evaluated
ADB/IED
No
Yes
Data not
always
comparable
Not rated
Not rated
Problems of aggregation Not evaluated
Swiss
Cooperation
No
Yes
Data not
always
comparable
Not
evaluated
High
Problems of aggregation Not evaluated
NICFI
Yes
Yes
Low efficiency of
UN-REDDþ
High
Likelihood of higher
level and longer term
impact
Insufficient funding may be a barrier to
reach longer term sustainability of
forests as natural resource
UN-REDDþ Yes
No
Yes
Low
Moderately
satisfactory
Moderately
unsatisfactory
Not evaluated
22
R.D. van den Berg and L. Cando-Noordhuizen