Program Evaluation of the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) 2016

September 2016
Document status:
Document type:
Evaluation number:
Evaluation type:
Program Evaluation
IEO grouping:
Thematic & Impact
Full Report:
Related Brief:

This study provides insights on the Global Environment Facility (GEF) adaptation portfolio for the GEF-7 replenishment cycle. It assesses the Least Developed Country Fund’s (LDCF’s) efficacy and results for successes and shortcomings in a thorough portfolio evaluation. It provides evidence on progress toward LDCF objectives, major achievements, and lessons learned. In addition to document and project reviews, the team conducted field visits to Cambodia, Haiti, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, and Senegal; and carried out interviews with key stakeholders to cross-check and validate the data collected. The data were analyzed and triangulated to determine trends and formulate main findings, conclusions, lessons, and recommendations.

In its evaluation of the LDCF, the Independent Evaluation Office of the GEF reached the following 8 conclusions:

  1. LDCF supported activities, for the most part, have been highly relevant to COP guidance, and countries’ development priorities.
  2. LDCF supported interventions show clear potential in reaching the GEF’s three adaptation strategic objectives.
  3. Contributions of LDCF supported interventions to focal areas other than climate change are potentially significant.
  4. The efficiency of the LDCF has been negatively impacted by the unpredictability of available resources.
  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.
  6. There is a clear intent to mainstream adaptation into countries’ environmental and sustainable development policies, plans and associated processes.
  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’.
  8. There are significant discrepancies in project data from the GEF Secretariat’s Project Management Information System (PMIS).

In its evaluation of the LDCF, the Independent Evaluation Office of the GEF reached the following 3 recommendations:

  1. The GEF Secretariat should explore and develop mechanisms that ensure the predictable, adequate and sustainable financing of the Fund.
  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.
  3. The GEF Secretariat should ensure that the data in the Project Management Information System is up to date and accurate.