Norway, through its international climate and forest initiative (NICFI), has contributed with core funding to GGGI since 2013. In addition to the core funding, Norway has several earmarked agreements with GGGI, supporting GGGI country programs in Indonesia, Colombia and Peru, as well as a global program for carbon quotas and new market mechanisms under Article 6 in the Paris Agreement.
Objective and scope
The purpose of this appraisal was to assess to which extent GGGI has satisfactory systems in place to deliver results according to its plans and strategies, and according to partner countries’ needs; how core funding contributes to support the country programs; and the degree of compatibility between GGGI’s orientations as set out in the organization’s new strategic plan (to be implemented from January 2021), and NICFI’s objectives and outcomes as set out in the initiative’s new results framework (from January 2020). The appraisal’s findings and recommendations will form part of the basis for the Ministry’s assessment and decisions regarding a possible continuation of the core support to GGGI.
Key evaluation questions
Related to NICFI and recipient country’s priorities
- To what extent does GGGI’s future orientations as set out in GGGI’s Strategy 2030 (which will be implemented from 1 January 2021), Road Map 2021-2025 and Workplan and Budget 2021-2022 correspond to NICFI’s main goals, as set out in the initiative’s revised results framework from 1 January 2020, and how can GGGI help deliver on NICFI’s goals? Which parts of GGGI’s strategic plan fall outside NICFI’s strategic framework?
- To what extent are GGGI’s country offices in Indonesia, Colombia, Peru equipped to deliver results corresponding to NICFI’s major goals? (e.g. staff size, relevant thematic, technical and geographic competencies, turnover) What additional value is provided by the GGGI HQ and/or regional offices covered by the core funding?
- Are there evidences of outcome/impact against objectives from previous and/or ongoing projects in Indonesia, Colombia and Peru?
- Does GGGI have legitimacy within the target groups, i.e. within the ministries that are relevant in order to achieve green sustainable development, in Indonesia, Colombia and Peru? Cf. also 2017-findings: “In many instances, GGGI is not well known outside its “circle” in the country, including beyond the division in the host ministry” and “GGGI’s primary modality of being embedded in a government ministry is generally positive; however, there is a potential risk of political capture, and/or lack of influence over other external ministries”. How does GGGI involve the target groups in developing strategy, targets and projects? How is ownership and sustainability ensured?
- How do national and relevant sub-national authorities in NICFI priority countries Indonesia, Colombia and Peru assess the value of GGGI’s efforts and contributions to reaching the objectives of the authorities in comparison with other nationally and internationally supported initiatives? Which changes have they seen as a result of GGGI?
- 2017-recommendation: “In GGGI’s country operations, political issues need to be better understood and potential responses clearly defined”. How is the situation relating to these issues in Indonesia, Colombia and Peru?
- Assessment of GGGI’s capacity to adapt to changing contexts, e.g. COVID-19, contribute to innovation and identify strategic opportunities
- Strategic relevance / relevance of the organization within the field. Assess the value of GGGI’s role and work in the global context, not least in relation to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Green Climate Fund (GCF), and 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda (Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and Financing for Development Agenda), jf. Joint Donor Review 2015, with focus on NICFI’s results framework. Does GGGI have an added value compared to e.g. UN-PAGE, UN-REDD, The Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU), Climate Finance Accelerator (CFA), GIZ, Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) or other relevant actors?
Related to the financial situation of GGGI
- Assessment of the historical ratio between GGGI’s core funding vs. earmarked funding for the period 2015-2020. Are there any trends regarding the abovementioned ratio and GGGI’s overall results achievements? Is GGGI’s current financial mix (core vs. earmarked funding) optimal for GGGI to effectively deliver on its strategic plan, and if not, what measures is GGGI planning to take to improve the situation?
- Assessment of the administrative transaction costs in relation to the increase in earmarked support. What are the main drivers of GGGI’s total administrative costs and the high overhead rate for earmarked projects? What could reduce the administrative costs and hence make GGGI more cost-efficient?
- 2017-evaluation: “GGGI must sharpen its approach to resource mobilization”. Has there been any change in GGGI resource mobilization activities since 2017, and to what extent has this proved effective relating not only to quantity of funds but also the quality of funds?
Governance: For the next few years, GGGI should consolidate as an organization” (2017-recommendation). Has the organization been consolidated after its restructuration?
- Does GGGI’s risk management system take into account any negative effects the organization may have for the four cross-cutting issues in Norwegian development cooperation (human rights; women’s rights and gender equality; climate and environment; anti-corruption)?
- What areas of the organization/activities contain the highest risks for corruption?
This evaluation report was commissioned by Norway and GGGI was not provided the opportunity to prepare a management response.
The Terms of Reference / Approach Paper for this Evaluation is included in Annex 1 of the Report.