The World Bank Group’s Partnership with the Global...

GLOBAL PROGRAM

REVIEW

The World Bank Group’s Partnership with the Global Environment Facility

wb305895

Typewritten Text

Volume 3: Survey Results

wb305895

Typewritten Text

wb305895

Typewritten Text

Volume 7 | Issue 1

wb305895

Typewritten Text

Global Program Review

The World Bank Group’s Partnership with the Global Environment Facility

Volume 3: Survey Results

August 6, 2013 Country, Corporate and Global Evaluations

http://www.globalevaluations.org

i

Contents

Overview of Surveys Conducted ............................................................................................................ 1

Overview ............................................................................................................................................ 1

Margin of Error .................................................................................................................................. 1

Merging Present and Past TTL Surveys ............................................................................................. 2

Timing of Surveys .............................................................................................................................. 4

Qualitative Analysis of Open-Ended Responses ................................................................................ 5

Color Coding Used in Tables ............................................................................................................. 5

Results of Survey 1: GEF Focal Points .................................................................................................. 6

Results of Survey 2: GEF Program Managers...................................................................................... 16

Results of Survey 3: World Bank Country Economists ....................................................................... 31

Results of Survey 4: World Bank Task Team Leaders ........................................................................ 44

1

Overview of Surveys Conducted

1.1 This detailed survey Annex serves as backup document for the data, charts and tables presented in volume I, the main report of this review. In addition, it is hoped to serve as reference material for World Bank and GEF studies and to inform future decision-making.

Overview

1.2 Overall, four online surveys were conducted for this review, each designed for and targeting a different target group:

GEF Focal Points; GEF Program Managers; World Bank Country Economists (task leaders for country assistance strategies); and World Bank Task Team Leaders.

1.3 As displayed in the table below, the number of survey invitations sent to each group has been recorded, followed by the number of those invitees who actually responded. These figures are then followed by the number of respondents included in the survey results, based on the completeness of their responses.

Survey Group Number of Surveys

Number of Respondents

Share of Respondents

Number of Respondents Included in

Analysis


GEF Focal Points 236 90 38% 63 27%

GEF Program Managers

29 22 76% 22 76%

World Bank Country Economists

223a 43 19% 40 18%

World Bank Task Team Leaders

381 134 35% 113 30%

a. The number of surveys includes 147 World Bank Task Team Leaders and 76 World Bank Country Economists who were targeted as part of this survey. If only Country Economists were counted, then the share of respondents would be 57%, and the share of respondents included in the analysis would be 53%.

Margin of Error

1.4 The margin of error, which is the quantification of the random sampling error in a given survey’s results, was calculated using the following formula:

1

1

2

1.5 The margin of error seeks to explain the proximity of the sample to the “true” population. In the formula, E equals the margin of error, which is calculated by multiplying the z-score, or the standard score, used to demonstrate how many standard deviations an observation differs from the mean, by the square root of the sample size in relation to the total population by the probability of proportion of the population. The calculation assumed a confidence level of 95% and that a random sample with a sufficiently large population was taken, thus allowing the standard normal distribution of z-scores to be used. The z-score used in this calculation was 1.96. As a general rule, the higher the confidence level, the higher the z-score. The variable N represents the population size, which from the table above, is the “Number of Surveys.” Moreover, the variable n represents the sample size, which from the table above, is the “Number of Respondents Included in Analysis.” Finally, the variable p represents the probability of proportion of the population, which is unknown and is thus assumed to be equal to 0.5. Based on the properties of this formula, samples with an overall larger sample size, or n, will have smaller margins of error, or E.

Survey Group Margin of Errora

GEF Focal Points +/- 10.6 percent

GEF Program Managers +/- 10.4 percent

World Bank Country Economists +/- 14.1 percent

World Bank Task Team Leaders +/- 7.7 percent

a. Based on 95% level of confidence

Merging Present and Past TTL Surveys

1.6 The World Bank Task Team Leader survey split the respondents into three (3) groups dependent upon the respondent’s history as a TTL of a GEF project and his or her participation in a related survey conducted by the World Bank’s GEF Coordination Team, herein termed and noted where applicable as the “ENVIA” survey. The three (3) distinct groups consisted of those who:

Have never been the TTL of a GEF project; Have been the TTL of a GEF project and answered the ENVIA survey; and Have been the TTL of a GEF project but did not answer the ENVIA survey.

1.7 Each respondent then answered their respective group of questions based on his or her classification. Certain questions were posed to each group, however, and when done so, these responses have been combined to maximize the answer pool. Moreover, the ENVIA survey results (51 respondents) have been incorporated into the survey results from this review to further maximize the answer pool when the exact same question was posed in both surveys. To obtain a better understanding of who the intended target groups were for certain questions, tables displaying those questions posed to more than one group are provided below.

3

1.8 The questions posed to all three groups (“A”, “B”, “C”) are summarized in the table below.

TTL Survey Question Number

Question Question

Type

2 In which region(s) have you mainly acted as TTL for World Bank projects with ENRM as primary theme?

Closed

3 Which of the following applies to you? (Select one) Depending on your answer, you will be directed to the relevant questionnaire.

Closed

4 What has been the main focal area of the GEF project(s) you were involved with? Closed

6, 7, 24 In your opinion, what are the main hurdles (if any) for implementing GEF projects in the Bank? Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements.

Closed

32 Did we forget anything? Please add any suggestion, comment or feedback in the box below.

Open

1.9 The questions posed to two groups (“B”, “C”) are summarized in the table below.


Question Question

Type

8, 27

During the last GEF Council meeting, participants agreed to further streamline the GEF project cycle vis-a-vis all GEF agencies. In your opinion, how could the project cycle between the GEF and its agencies be further streamlined? Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements: (statements are sometimes formulated in a provocative way in order to trigger your reaction. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the evaluators)

Closed

9, 28

In addition to the general streamlining measures discussed in the previous question, the World Bank and the GEF are currently discussing a pilot for a further simplified project cycle. GEF staff would participate in key decision meetings of the World Bank. Instead of submitting PIF and CEO Endorsement templates, the World Bank would submit its own project documents. Project review by the GEF would be based on World Bank's Project Concept Notes and Project Appraisal Documents. Further documentation required is being discussed. In your opinion, what would be the impact contribution of the simplification measures described below? Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements: (Statements are sometimes formulated in a provocative way in order to trigger your reaction. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the evaluators)

Closed

10, 17

How detailed is the country strategy document (Country Assistance Strategy/Country Partnership Strategy) in the country of your last GEF project regarding areas for environmental interventions? If your last GEF project involved more than one country, please select the option that best applies and use the box below to comment on your choice.

Closed

11, 18 In your opinion, how strongly have the following factors influenced environmental aspects in the CAS/CPS in this country?

Closed

12, 19 In your opinion, how do poverty alleviation and environmental objectives relate to each other? Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements

Closed

13, 20 In your opinion, in practical terms, how should activities that have environmental benefits as a main objective be funded by the Bank? Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:

Closed

4


Question Question

Type

14, 21 In your experience, how often do the following scenarios happen for projects with both World Bank and GEF funding, i.e. for blended World Bank-GEF projects:

Closed

15, 22

GEF grants are also available to the World Bank for stand-alone projects, i.e. for activities that are implemented by the World Bank but NOT blended with any World Bank-financed activities. These stand-alone GEF projects must however be related to existing or planned baseline activities in the country that produce local development benefits. Baseline activities might consist of government plans or programs, projects financed by multi- or bilateral development agencies (incl. the World Bank), NGO initiatives, etc. In your experience, how often do the following scenarios happen for a World Bank-implemented stand-alone GEF project related to baseline activities:

Closed

16, 23 What impact did your experience with GEF projects have on your personal professional development and on your unit?

Open

1.10 The questions posed to both the TTLs and the ENVIA survey respondents are summarized in the table below.


Question Question

Type

2 In which region(s) have you mainly acted as TTL for World Bank projects with ENRM as primary theme?

Closed

4 What has been the main focal area of the GEF project(s) you were involved with? Closed

25 Which parts of the GEF project cycle need to be simplified the most? (Please indicate priorities by checking one for each row)

Closed

29 Please use the space below to explain or give details about any positive or negative project cycle issues you have experienced.

Open

30 What would you need GEF funding for most in future? (Check one for each row) Closed

31 Do you have additional suggestions about how the GEF and WB collaboration could be improved?

Open

Timing of Surveys

1.11 The surveys presented in volume 3 are numbered based on the chronological order in which they were launched. The following table summarizes the timeframe in which the surveys were answered and reflects certain delays which were encountered because of low response counts, among other issues:

Survey Survey Group Date Survey Launched Date Survey

Officially Closed Date Survey

Results Last Received

1 GEF Focal Points November 7, 2012 November 23, 2012 November 23, 2012

2 GEF Program Managers November 27, 2012 December 14, 2012 December 16, 2012

3 World Bank Country Economists

December 11, 2012 February 13, 2013 February 19, 2013

4 World Bank Task Team Leaders

January 1, 2013 January 18, 2013 February 26, 2013

5

Qualitative Analysis of Open-Ended Responses

1.12 Respondents were able to freely respond to questions. Open-ended responses were grouped by shared commonalities; more than one commonality is possible per response. Open-ended questions consist of both stand-alone questions and additional comments to closed-ended questions. The difference is noted by each individual question.

Color Coding Used in Tables

1.13 The following tables are presented using a color coding scheme. The scheme is based on the number of responses received per answer. The selected scheme colors answers with a higher response rate red and those with a lower response rate green. Response rates are based on a sliding scale. Please see the example below for an illustrative explanation.

Number of Responses Answer 0 1 2 3 4 5

1.14 To make it easier for the readers to interpret the results, the following tables generally report the answers in descending frequency of responses, so that the answer with the highest response rate appears at the top of the table and the answer with the lowest response rate at the bottom.

6

Results of Survey 1: GEF Focal Points

The following survey was sent to 236 GEF Focal Points, of whom 90 responded (38%). Of these 90 respondents, 63 were included in the survey results, based on the level of response completeness (27%). Close-ended questions Respondents limited to a set of pre-determined responses. Question 4. What is your home institution?

Responses No. of

Respondentsa Share of

Respondents No. of

Respondentsb Share of

Respondents

Ministry of Environment 47 92% 47 75%

Ministry of Finance 4 8% 4 6%

Ministry of Agriculture 0 0% 0 0%

Ministry of Energy 0 0% 0 0%

No response

12 19%

Total 51 100% 63 100%

a. Excludes no responses b. Includes no responses

Question 5. With regard to the GEF, what is your professional title?

Responses No. of


Respondents No. of


Respondents

Operational Focal Point 43 69% 43 68%

Political Focal Point 11 18% 11 17%

Operational and Political Focal Point

8 13% 8 13%

No response

1 2%

Total 62 100% 63 100%


Question 6. For how long have you worked in your current position (with regard to the GEF)?

Responses No. of Respondents Share of Respondents

More than five years 23 37%

Between two and five years 20 32%

Between one and two years 13 21%

Less than one year 7 11%

Total 63 100%

7

Question 7. Have you been involved in negotiating, preparing or implementing GEF projects with the World Bank and/or the International Finance Corporation (IFC)? (you may select more than one option)

Responses No. of


Respondents No. of


Respondents

Yes, with the World Bank 32 52% 32 51%

No 21 34% 21 33%

Yes, with the World Bank & Yes, with IFC

7 11% 7 11%

Yes, with IFC 1 2% 1 2%

No response

2 3%

Total 61 100% 63 100%


Question 8. Which of the following options best describes your current level of involvement in the allocation of GEF resources to GEF Agencies?

Responses No. of


Respondents No. of


Respondents

I strongly influence resource allocation decisions to GEF Agencies

25 40% 25 40%

Resource allocation decisions to GEF Agencies are made elsewhere, I simply coordinate their execution

22 35% 22 35%

I personally decide about resource allocations to GEF Agencies

5 8% 5 8%

Other 10 16% 10 16%

No response

1 2%

Total 62 100% 63 100%


8

Question 10. For the following items, please indicate how much you feel the World Bank has a comparative advantage compared to other GEF Agencies.

Responses by Subquestiona Strong

comparative advantage

Some comparative advantage

Neutral Comparative disadvantage

No response

Total

Ability to handle large projects 33 22 6 0 2 63

Leveraging GEF funding to generate Global Environment Benefits in large investment projects

27 16 16 1 3 63

Expertise in project management

15 28 16 1 3 63

Bringing together donors, sectors and countries for programmatic initiatives

19 23 13 5 3 63

Knowledgeable about GEF modalities and procedures

17 24 18 2 2 63

Influencing policy and sector dialogue on sustainable development in recipient countries

15 25 18 2 3 63

Providing technical assistance and capacity building in recipient countries

12 26 21 1 3 63

Expanding the reach and scale of lessons and approaches tested

13 24 21 3 2 63

Generating innovative ideas and approaches for scale-up

12 25 20 3 3 63

Testing innovative ideas and approaches for scale-up

12 24 22 2 3 63

Expertise in climate change mitigation

13 22 23 4 1 63

Expertise in international waters

11 23 22 5 2 63

Expertise in climate change adaptation

9 26 20 6 2 63

Expertise in land degradation 11 18 25 7 2 63

Expertise in biodiversity 8 24 21 8 2 63

Presence of in-country staff 12 17 18 13 3 63

Expertise in chemicals (e.g. in persistent organic pollutants)

4 18 28 11 2 63

a. Includes no responses

9

Question 11. Who generally generates project ideas for World Bank-implemented GEF projects in your country? (Please respond to all of the following)

Responses by Subquestiona Often Sometimes Rarely Never No response Total

The Ministry of Environment 30 22 2 4 5 63

Ideas come up during GEF multi-stakeholder consultations

18 20 12 5 8 63

Ideas come up during consultations between the World Bank and the Ministry of Environment

17 22 11 5 8 63

A World Bank staff member 8 28 9 8 10 63

Another Ministry 4 29 15 5 10 63

Ideas come up during consultations between the World Bank and the Ministry of Finance (or other reference Ministries of the World Bank)

8 23 14 10 8 63

The Ministry of Finance 8 14 14 17 10 63


Question 12. What has been the nature of your interactions with World Bank staff and consultants? (You can select more than one answer)

Responses No. of Respondentsa Share of Respondents

I have one or more direct contact(s) at the World Bank 30 33%

I meet relevant World Bank officers one-to-one 25 27%

I meet relevant World Bank officers in meetings with other GEF Agencies

24 26%

I have no interaction with relevant World Bank officers 13 14%

I meet relevant World Bank officers in meetings with other ministries or government departments

0 0%

No response 3 3%

Total 92 100%


Question 13. How often do you interact with World Bank staff and consultants?

Responses No. of Respondentsa


No. of Respondentsb


Sometimes (several times per year) 23 37% 23 37%

Rarely (Once or twice per year) 15 24% 15 24%

I don't interact with the World Bank 10 16% 10 16%

Very often (several times per months) 8 13% 8 13%

Often (once in a month) 6 10% 6 10%

No response

1 2%

Total 62 100% 63 100%


10

Question 14. How did the nature and frequency of your interactions with World Bank staff and consultants evolve over the last 5 years?

Responses No. of


Respondents No. of


Respondents

The nature and frequency of interactions have remained more or less the same

33 55% 33 52%

The nature and frequency of interactions have improved

19 32% 19 30%

The nature and frequency of interactions have deteriorated

8 13% 8 13%

No response

3 5%

Total 60 100% 63 100%


Question 15. How has the share of GEF projects implemented through the World Bank evolved over the last 5 years?

Responses No. of


Respondents No. of


Respondents

The share has more or less been stable

27 44% 27 43%

The share has increased 13 21% 13 21%

No project has been implemented 11 18% 11 17%

The share has declined 10 16% 10 16%

No response

2 3%

Total 61 100% 63 100%


Question 16. Have you observed any changes in how strongly World Bank staff or consultants in your country have been interested in generating GEF projects with the World Bank as Agency?



No. of Respondentsb


Interest has remained more or less stable

31 57% 31 49%

Interest is stronger today than some years ago

15 28% 15 24%

Interest is less today than a some years ago

8 15% 8 13%

No response

9 14%

Total 54 100% 63 100%


11

Question 17. Recipient countries can access GEF resources to undertake, on a voluntary basis, a GEF National Portfolio Formulation Exercise (NPFE). Has a NPFE been conducted in you country? If yes, how were World Bank staff and consultants involved in this exercise?



No. of Respondentsb


There has been no NPFE in my country

25 42% 25 40%

World Bank staff and consultants were not invited to participate in consultations on the NPFE

14 24% 14 22%

World Bank staff and consultants were invited to participate in consultations on the NPFE and participated actively

10 17% 10 16%

World Bank staff and consultants were invited to participate in consultations on the NPFE and participated moderately

8 14% 8 13%

World Bank staff and consultants were invited to participate in consultations on the NPFE and did not participate

2 3% 2 3%

No response

4 6%

Total 59 100% 63 100%


Question 18. In your opinion, what impact has the introduction of the resource allocation systems RAF and STAR had on the World Bank, compared to the time before these systems were introduced? (please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements)

Responses by Subquestiona Strongly

agree Agree

somewhat Disagree

somewhat Strongly disagree

No response

Total

The decision-making power on GEF resource allocation has shifted from the Agencies to the countries

23 25 6 4 5 63

The World Bank needs to systematically combine GEF projects with large investment projects

22 20 8 7 6 63

The World Bank prefers large-scale projects but the upper budget ceiling imposed by RAF and STAR doesn't allow those anymore

17 23 12 5 6 63

It has become more difficult for the World Bank to initiate GEF projects because other Agencies have better access to the GEF Focal Points

8 18 15 15 7 63


12

Question 19. The International Finance Cooperation (IFC) is part of the World Bank Group and acts as implementer of GEF projects involving the private sector. In your opinion, what impact has the introduction of the resource allocation systems RAF and STAR had for GEF projects involving the private sector? (please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements) Skip part or all of this question if you don't feel familiar enough with GEF private sector projects.


agree Agree

somewhat Disagree


No response

Total

The new resource allocation systems have provided greater opportunity for partnership between the public and the private sector

16 12 6 3 26 63

GEF projects involving the private sector have been neglected because the government prefers to use GEF resources to support the public sector

6 13 11 12 21 63


Open-ended questions Respondents were able to freely respond to questions. Open-ended responses were grouped by shared commonalities; more than one commonality is possible per response. Open-ended questions consist of both stand-alone questions and additional comments to closed-ended questions. The difference is noted by each individual question. Question 2. What country do you work in?

Stand-Alone Question (grouped by region based on the country named by the respondent)



No. of Respondentsb


Africa 18 29% 18 29%

Latin America & Caribbean

17 27% 17 27%

Europe & Central Asia 11 18% 11 17%

East Asia & Pacific 10 16% 10 16%

Middle East & North Africa

4 6% 4 6%

South Asia 1 2% 1 2%

North America 1 2% 1 2%

Unknown

1 2%

Total 62 100% 63 100%


13

Question 3. Please tell us your professional title in your home institution (that is, not with regard to the GEF)

Stand-Alone Question (frequency of appearance in title)

Responses No. of Respondentsa Share of

Respondents No. of Respondentsb


Director 21 27% 21 27%

Environment 17 22% 17 22%

Secretary 10 13% 10 13%

Head 8 10% 8 10%

Minister 7 9% 7 9%

International 7 9% 7 9%

Officer 3 4% 3 4%

Development 3 4% 3 4%

Ambassador 2 3% 2 3%

No response

1 1%

Total 78 100% 79 100%


Question 8. Which of the following options best describes your current level of involvement in the allocation of GEF resources to GEF Agencies?

Other Responses

Other Responses No. of Respondents Share of Respondents

Part of stakeholders who decide resource allocation 5 26%

Interdepartmental and resource coordination 3 16%

Project approval 2 11%

Leader of GEF stakeholder committee 2 11%

Committee who decides 2 11%

Influence committee decisions 2 11%

Limited involvement 2 11%

Partnership role to implement initiatives 1 5%

Total 19 100%

14

Question 9. Each of these agencies has its own comparative advantages. In your own words, how would you describe the comparative advantage of the World Bank in implementing GEF projects? In other words: why would you prefer to implement a GEF project through the World Bank rather than through another GEF Agency?

Stand-Alone Question (only answers with 2 or more responses included)


World Bank does have a comparative advantage:

Project financing 10 14%

Procedures and guidelines 8 12%

Close relationship with GEF 4 6%

Expertise 4 6%

Experience 4 6%

Large projects 3 4%

Established relationship and level of local involvement 2 3%

Importance / significance 2 3%

Project support 2 3%

Subtotal 39 57%

No preference 3 4%

World Bank does not have a comparative advantage:

Satisfied with project history and collaboration with UNDP 3 4%

Lack of experience with World Bank 5 7%

Not applicable / not decipherable 3 4%

Total 53 77%

15

Question 14. How did the nature and frequency of your interactions with World Bank staff and consultants evolve over the last 5 years?

Response Elaborations No. of Respondents Share of

Respondents

Improved

Open and regular discussions 3 16%

Greater presence and interest in country 3 16%

Project development 2 11%

Looking outside GEF process to other environmental initiatives 1 5%

Improved coordination 1 5%

Subtotal 10 53%

Remained more or less the same

Limited access (ministry, regional meetings, national consultations) 2 11%

General frame of cooperation with World Bank 1 5%

Job position and nature of interaction 1 5%

Current level satisfactory 1 5%

World Bank does not involve GEF Focal Point - already formed opinion 1 5%

Only receive resources for GEF SGP 1 5%

Lack of experience 1 5%

Subtotal 8 42%

No comment 1 5%

Total 19 100%

Question 20. Please use the space below to add any further comments or suggestions you might have

Stand-Alone Question


Local representatives not actively engaged enough by World Bank 5 15%

World Bank difficult to work with 5 15%

Limited experience with World Bank 4 12%

World Bank too involved in national issues 3 9%

Project cycle is lengthy 3 9%

World Bank has key advantages 3 9%

World Bank should focus on smaller countries with limited capacities 2 6%

Need for prioritization of strategies and objectives 2 6%

World Bank focuses too much on large projects 1 3%

GEF Agencies not involved enough 1 3%

World Bank not involved enough in project development 1 3%

Not enough investment 1 3%

Survey too exclusive 1 3%

Survey promotes critical analysis of World Bank and GEF 1 3%

Total 33 100%

16

Results of Survey 2: GEF Program Managers

The following survey was sent to 29 GEF Program Managers, of whom 22 responded (76%); however, 2 respondents were not part of the target group. Of these 22 respondents, 22 were included in the survey results, based on the level of response completeness (76%). Close-ended questions Respondents limited to a set of pre-determined responses. Question 3. Which of the following areas do you work in? (You can select more than one answer)


Biodiversity 5 16%

Chemicals 5 16%

Climate Change Mitigation 5 16%

Climate Change Adaptation 4 13%

Sustainable Forest Management / REDD+ 4 13%

International Waters 3 9%

Land Degradation 3 9%

Ozone Layer Depletion 3 9%

Total 32 100%

Question 4. What is/are your region(s) of focus?

Responses No. of


Respondents No. of


Respondents

More than one region 16 76% 16 73%

Africa 3 14% 3 14%

Latin America and the Caribbean

1 5% 1 5%

Middle East and North Africa 1 5% 1 5%

Eastern Asia and Pacific 0 0% 0 0%

Europe and Central Asia 0 0% 0 0%

South Asia 0 0% 0 0%

No response

1 5%

Total 21 100% 22 100%


17

Question 5. For how long have you worked in your current position?


Between two and five years 10 45%

Between one and two years 5 23%

More than five years 4 18%

Less than one year 3 14%

Total 22 100%

Question 6. Which statement best describes the way you are usually involved in the development of GEF projects implemented by the World Bank prior to the PIF review? Please indicate how often you are involved in project development in the following ways:

Responses by Subquestiona

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Most of the

time No

response Total

I contact a World Bank TTL to discuss a project idea I have developed

9 5 5 0 0 3 22

I contact the World Bank Coordination Office to discuss a project idea I have developed

9 5 4 1 0 3 22

I contact the World Bank Coordination Office with a project idea initiated by a country

6 9 3 1 0 3 22

I contact a World Bank Task Team Leader (TTL) with a project idea initiated by a country

6 6 6 0 1 3 22

The World Bank GEF Coordination Office contacts me informally to discuss a project idea

4 5 7 2 0 4 22

A World Bank TTL contacts me informally to discuss a project idea

0 6 10 4 0 2 22

I am not involved in project preparation prior to the PIF review

0 5 4 0 10 3 22


18

Question 7. On average, how frequently do you review both the PIF and the CEO Endorsement Request for the same project?


Most of the time 10 45%

Always 6 27%

Sometimes 3 14%

Rarely 2 9%

Never 1 5%

Total 22 100%

Question 9. When reviewing a PIF, which statement best describes the level of guidance provided to you by the GEF?

Responses No. of

Respondents Share of

Respondents

There is clear, precise and documented guidance; Program Managers however have to go beyond this guidance during the review

11 50%

Guidance is not that specific and requires some interpretation by Program Managers

6 27%

There is clear, precise and documented guidance that completely guides the review

3 14%

Guidance is clear and precise but not fully documented 2 9%

Guidance is pretty general; the review largely depends on the individual style of the Program Manager

0 0%

Total 22 100%

Question 10. When reviewing a CEO Endorsement Request, which statement best describes the level of guidance provided to you by the GEF?


There is clear, precise and documented guidance; Program Managers however have to go beyond this guidance during the review

10 45%

Guidance is not that specific and requires some interpretation by Program Managers

6 27%

There is clear, precise and documented guidance that completely guides the review

3 14%

Guidance is pretty general; the review largely depends on the individual style of the Program Manager

0 0%

Guidance is clear and precise but not fully documented 3 14%

Total 22 100%

19

Question 11. When reviewing PIFs of World Bank implemented projects, how often do you encounter the following issues when the PIF is submitted for the first time?

Responses by Subquestiona In

most cases

In about half of all

cases

In about one out of four cases

Rarely No response

Total

The project is not consistent with the incrementality policy of the GEF (excluding Climate Change Adaptation projects)

2 6 9 3 2 22

The project is not consistent with the additionality policy of the GEF for Climate Adaptation projects. (If you are not concerned, please leave blank)

2 2 2 3 13 22

The project is not designed well enough to reach its objectives

0 11 4 7 0 22

Financial data are not accurate 1 4 7 9 1 22

The project is not consistent with the GEF Focal Area strategy

1 4 5 12 0 22

The cofinancing ratio is not sufficiently high 0 5 5 11 1 22

Consultant rates are too high 1 3 5 11 2 22

The comparative advantage of the World Bank as GEF Agency is not clear

0 3 5 13 1 22


20

Question 12. When reviewing CEO Endorsement Requests of World Bank implemented projects, how often do you encounter the following issues when the CEO Endorsement Request is submitted for the first time?

Responses by Subquestiona In most cases

In about half of all cases

In about one out of four

cases Rarely

No response

Total

The Tracking Tools are not filled in properly 4 4 8 4 2 22

The project is not designed well enough to reach its objectives

0 4 6 10 2 22

The project differs substantially from the approved PIF and the changes are not explained well

0 1 11 8 2 22

The project differs substantially from the approved PIF

0 1 10 8 3 22

Financial data are not accurate 1 2 5 12 2 22

Consultant rates are too high 0 3 4 13 2 22

The comparative advantage of the World Bank as GEF Agency is not clear

1 1 4 14 2 22

The cofinancing ratio is not sufficiently high

0 1 5 14 2 22

The project is not consistent with the incrementality of the GEF projects (excluding Climate Change Adaptation projects)

0 0 6 14 2 22

The project is not consistent with the additionality policy of the GEF for Climate Change Adaptation projects. (If you are not concerned, please leave blank)

0 1 0 6 15 22

The project is not consistent with the GEF Focal Area strategy

0 0 1 20 1 22


Question 13. Have you ever not recommended a World Bank GEF project so that it was dropped?


Share of Respondents No. of Respondentsb


No 14 67% 14 64%

Yes 7 33% 7 32%

No response

1 5%

Total 21 100% 22 100%


21

Question 14. In your opinion, which criteria should guide the GEF review of PIFs and CEO Endorsement Requests submitted by the World Bank in the future? Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements: When reviewing project proposals submitted by the World Bank in the future, the GEF should review...


agree Agree

somewhat Disagree


No response

Total

... the consistency of the project with GEF strategic objectives and strategic programs

21 1 0 0 0 22

... the technical design of the project 20 2 0 0 0 22

... the country eligibility and ownership 19 3 0 0 0 22

... the consistency of the project with national strategies and plans

19 3 0 0 0 22

... the availability of resources 15 7 0 0 0 22

... the project monitoring and evaluation arrangements

14 7 1 0 0 22

... the strategy of the baseline project 15 3 4 0 0 22

... the Agency’s comparative advantage 11 10 1 0 0 22

At CEO Endorsement stage, the review of proposals submitted by the World Bank should go into much more detail than at PIF stage

14 4 1 2 1 22

... the operational and administrative costs

7 15 0 0 0 22

... the implementation arrangements 10 10 1 1 0 22

... the technical design of the baseline project

9 5 6 2 0 22


22

Question 15. During the last Council meeting, participants have agreed to further streamline the GEF project cycle vis-a-vis all GEF agencies. In your opinion, how could the project cycle between the GEF and its Agencies be further improved? Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements: (Statements are sometimes formulated in a provocative way in order to trigger your reaction. They do not reflect the opinion of the evaluators)


agree Agree

somewhat Disagree


No response

Total

In GEF review and templates, the quality of project design should be at least as important as the consistency with GEF strategies and policies when reviewing a project proposal

12 9 0 0 1 22

The decision to raise Medium-Sized Projects to $2Mio (from $1Mio) is useful

10 10 1 1 0 22

Program Managers should reject weak proposals 10 7 4 0 1 22

Consultant costs should remain an item in PIF and CEO Endorsement Request templates

8 7 7 0 0 22

Program Managers should help weak proposals reach GEF-ability

7 10 3 2 0 22

PIFs should be approved by the Council on a rolling basis

1 6 9 5 1 22

The CEO Endorsement Request should contain only new information (Tracking Tool, current annexes and the Agency's project document) and justification for changes since the PIF approval

2 6 6 8 0 22

PIF and CEO Endorsement templates should be simplified to focus only on items related to the consistency of the project with GEF strategies and policies

1 3 8 10 0 22

Project management costs should not be part of the PIF and CEO Endorsement template

1 2 8 11 0 22

The review of project proposals should be focused only on the consistency of the project with GEF strategies and policies

1 3 5 13 0 22

PIFs should be skipped for smaller FSPs (under $5Mio)

0 2 9 11 0 22

Smaller FSPs (under $5Mio) should go straight to GEF approval of the Agency's project document

0 3 7 12 0 22

The quality control for World Bank implemented GEF projects should be entirely entrusted to the World Bank; the GEF should exert quality control only retrospectively

1 0 7 13 1 22

The quality control for GEF projects should be entirely entrusted to the Agencies; the GEF should exert quality control only retrospectively

1 1 5 15 0 22

The CEO Endorsement Request should be replaced by a response matrix

0 1 6 13 2 22


23

Question 16. In addition to the general streamlining measures discussed in the previous questions, the World Bank and the GEF are currently discussing a pilot for a further simplified project cycle. Secretariat staff will participate in key decision meetings of the World Bank. Instead of submitting PIF and CEO Endorsement templates, the World Bank will submit its own project documents. Project review by the GEF will be based on World Bank's Project Concept Notes and Project Appraisal Documents. Further documentation required is being discussed. In your opinion, what will be the impact contribution of the simplification measures described below? Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements: (Statements are sometimes formulated in a provocative way in order to trigger your reaction. They do not reflect the opinion of the evaluators)


agree Agree

somewhat Disagree


No response

Total

The World Bank's project cycle is not conducive to meet GEF-specific standards and GEF-specific project cycle steps are of crucial importance

10 8 2 1 1 22

The participation of GEF staff in the World bank Project Concept Review Meeting will contribute to enhance project quality

8 10 2 1 1 22

Completely leaving out the GEF template for CEO Endorsement Request for World Bank-implemented projects would negatively affect the quality of World Bank-implemented projects

8 7 4 1 2 22

The participation of GEF staff in the World Bank Project Appraisal Decision Meeting will contribute to enhance project quality

6 11 2 2 1 22

Adapting the GEF project cycle to the World Bank's cycle would reduce overall workload but shift workload from the World Bank to GEF Secretariat staff

6 11 2 2 1 22

Adapting the GEF project cycle to the World Bank would increase overall workload

6 7 6 1 2 22

Using only World Bank Project Concept Note instead of the PIF would negatively affect the quality of World Bank-implemented projects

4 7 8 1 2 22

The World Bank's project cycle is well designed to produce high quality projects and the GEF should take advantage of it and avoid duplication

4 8 5 4 1 22

Reducing the requirements of the GEF template for CEO Endorsement Request for World Bank-implemented projects would negatively affect the quality of World Bank-implemented projects

1 9 7 3 2 22

Adapting the GEF project cycle to the World Bank's cycle would make the coordination smoother so that capacity requirements are reduced on both the GEF Secretariat and the World Bank side

1 9 6 5 1 22


24

Question 20. In your opinion, how has the World Bank portfolio evolved in your Focal Area(s) in the last 5 years regarding...

Responses by Subquestiona Has

increased Has remained more

or less the same Has declined

No response

Total

... the amount of co-financing of projects?

9 10 1 2 22

... the financial size of projects? 4 11 6 1 22

... the number of projects? 0 8 13 1 22


Question 21. In your opinion, what impacts did the introduction of the resource allocation systems RAF and STAR have on the World Bank, compared to the time before these systems were introduced? (please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements)


Strongly agree

Agree somewhat

Disagree somewhat

Strongly disagree

No response

Total

The decision-making power on GEF resource allocation has shifted from the Agencies to the countries

7 10 1 0 4 22

The World Bank prefers large-scale projects but the upper budget ceiling imposed by RAF and STAR doesn't allow those anymore

5 6 4 1 6 22

The World Bank now needs to systematically combine GEF projects with large investment projects

2 10 3 1 6 22

It has become more difficult for the World Bank to initiate GEF projects because other Agencies have better access to the GEF Focal Points

1 4 6 6 5 22

Other 3 1 0 0 18 22


25

Question 22. In your opinion, what impacts did the introduction of the resource allocation systems RAF and STAR have on GEF projects involving the private sector? (please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements)


agree Agree

somewhat Disagree


No response

Total

GEF projects involving the private sector were neglected because the recipient country governments prioritize public over private sector investments

4 8 2 2 6 22

The share of GEF projects implemented by IFC has declined

3 7 3 1 8 22

There now is a greater opportunity for partnership between the public and the private sector

2 5 5 3 7 22

Other 4 0 0 1 17 22


26

Question 23. For the following items, please indicate how much you feel the World Bank has a comparative advantage or disadvantage compared to other GEF Agencies.


Strong comparative advantage

Some comparative advantage

Neutral Some

comparative disadvantage

Strong comparative disadvantage

No response

Total

Ability to handle large projects 15 4 2 0 0 1 22

Leveraging GEF funding to generate Global Environment Benefits in large investment projects

9 11 1 0 0 1 22

Expertise in project management

6 8 6 1 0 1 22

Engaging in policy and sector dialogue on sustainable development in recipient countries

4 9 8 0 0 1 22

Bringing together donors, countries and sectoral ministries for programmatic initiatives

3 10 5 2 0 2 22

Presence of in-country staff 3 10 7 0 1 1 22

Expertise in climate change mitigation

3 5 6 1 0 7 22

Generating innovative ideas and approaches for scale-up

2 11 6 2 0 1 22

Expanding the reach and scale of approaches tested and lessons learned

1 10 10 0 0 1 22

Providing Technical Assistance and Capacity Building in recipient countries

2 9 7 3 0 1 22

Expertise in land degradation 1 7 5 2 0 7 22

Testing innovative ideas and approaches for scale-up

1 10 5 4 0 2 22

Knowledgeable about GEF modalities and procedures

3 9 3 5 1 1 22

Expertise in international waters

0 6 8 1 0 7 22

Expertise in chemicals (e.g. in persistant organic pollutants)

1 5 9 0 1 6 22

Expertise in climate change adaptation 1 5 6 3 0 7 22

Expertise in biodiversity 0 4 4 2 5 7 22


27

Open-ended questions Respondents were able to freely respond to questions. Open-ended responses were grouped by shared commonalities; more than one commonality is possible per response. Open-ended questions consist of both stand-alone questions and additional comments to closed-ended questions. The difference is noted by each individual question. Question 2. Please tell us your professional title(s) in the GEF



Senior Environmental Specialist 11 44%

Program Manager 3 12%

Senior Biodiversity Specialist 3 12%

Junior Professional Officer 2 8%

Biodiversity Focal Area Coordinator 1 4%

Deputy CEO 1 4%

Head, Climate and Chemicals 1 4%

Senior Climate Change Specialist 1 4%

Senior Energy Specialist 1 4%

Senior Policy Officer 1 4%

Total 25 100%

Question 8. In your own words, how would you characterize your role in the development/preparation/appraisal of World Bank-implemented GEF projects?



Reviewer 7 28%

Feedback provider 3 12%

Controller 3 12%

Sidelined player 3 12%

Information provider 2 8%

Idea suggester 2 8%

Communication specialist 2 8%

Facilitator 1 4%

Active player in discussions 1 4%

Limited project guide 1 4%

Total 25 100%

28

Question 11. When reviewing PIFs of World Bank implemented projects, how often do you encounter the following issues when the PIF is submitted for the first time?

Other Responses (only responses with 2 or more responses included)


World Bank only focused on project finances - no value added in other areas

2 29%

Lack of consistency 2 29%

Total 4 57%

Question 17. Depending on the experience from the pilot, the Secretariat will explore similar engagements with other Agencies. This would represent a shift from one single project cycle for all agencies to a project cycle adapted to each agency's cycle. What would be the main advantage of shifting from one single project cycle for all agencies to a project cycle adapted to each agency's cycle?


Responsesa No. of Respondents Share of Respondents

No advantages seen 4 16%

Disadvantage: overburden the system 3 12%

Advantage: agencies use their own documents for grants 3 12%

Advantage: agencies implement comparative advantage policy 3 12%

Disadvantage: complicate current process for Program Managers 2 8%

Advantage: agencies will find process easier 2 8%

Advantage: agencies use own approval processes 1 4%

Advantage: GEF and countries have less work 1 4%

Advantage: combine agencies' and GEF's financing for better project integration and reduced costs

1 4%

Advantage: comments received in pre-appraisal stage and less additional information required for CEO Endorsement

1 4%

No response 4 16%

Total 25 100% a. Includes no responses

29

Question 18. What would be your biggest worry if such a shift were implemented?

Stand-Alone Question (only answers with 2 or more responses included)


Additional workload - GEF 5 15%

Inconsistency 5 15%

Missing specific GEF requirements from agency procedures 3 9%

Confusion by countries how to access funding 2 6%

Management of different agencies' cycles 2 6%

Project management 2 6%

Transparency 2 6%

Unfair demand on GEF 2 6%

No response 3 9%

Total 26 79%


Question 19. Please use the space below to add any further comment or suggestion you might have on the World Bank-GEF project cycle



Changes to project cycle too great and rapid 4 14%

Changes will not improve project cycle 2 7%

World Bank needs to accept GEF 2 7%

Current project cycle working 2 7%

Changes overlook GEF specific requirements and reporting

1 3%

Need adequate support systems in place 1 3%

Need to involve GEF early in World Bank project design

1 3%

World Bank job incentives not tied to GEF portfolio 1 3%

GEF Secretariat's independence undermined 1 3%

Overload of bad projects near deadlines 1 3%

Conflicting viewpoints of World Bank and GEF on project cycle changes

1 3%

Relationship between World Bank and GEF beneficial 1 3%

No response 11 38%

Total 18 62%


30

Question 20. In your opinion, how has the World Bank portfolio evolved in your Focal Area(s) in the last 5 years regarding...

Response Elaborations (only elaborations with 2 or more responses included)

Response Elaborations No. of Respondents Share of Respondents

World Bank not present in smaller countries 2 13%

Number of (smaller) projects decreased but budget remains the same

2 13%

Total 4 27%

Question 24. Please use the space below to add any further comment or suggestion you might have



Survey concerns 5 22%

GEF structural issues 3 13%

World Bank not listening - "bad" projects pushed through 3 13%

World Bank and GEF should capitalize on relationship 2 9%

Criticism of project cycle changes 2 9%

Criticism of streamlining measures 2 9%

Praise of GEF procedures and templates 2 9%

Commitment to achieving objectives 2 9%

Redevelopment of project design process 2 9%

Total 23 100%

31

Results of Survey 3: World Bank Country Economists

The following survey was sent to 76 World Bank Country Economists and 147 World Bank Task Team Leaders, for a combined total of 223 target respondents, of whom 43 responded (19%). Of these 43 respondents, 40 were included in the survey results, based on the level of response completeness (18%). If only the Country Economists were considered, then the response rate would be 57% and the inclusion rate would be 53%. Close-ended questions Respondents limited to a set of pre-determined responses. Question 3. How have you been involved in the formulation of a country strategy document in your country (Country Assistance Strategy / Country Partnership Stretegy / Interim Strategy Note)? Please refer to the last country strategy document you were involved with (in case you were involved with several country strategy documents)



No. of Respondentsb


I led the preparation of the country strategy document in my country

26 67% 26 65%

I actively participated in the preparation of the country strategy document in my country but did not lead it

12 31% 12 30%

I was not actively involved in the preparation of the country strategy document but know the country strategy document for my country well

1 3% 1 3%

I was not actively involved in the preparation of the country strategy document and I don't know know this document very well

0 0% 0 0%

No response

1 3%

Total 39 100% 40 100%


Question 4. What kind of country strategy document was it?

Responses No. of


Respondents No. of


Respondents

Country Partnership Strategy

22 56% 22 55%

Country Assistance Strategy

10 26% 10 25%

Interim Strategy Note 7 18% 7 18%

No response

1 3%

Total 39 100% 40 100%


32

Question 5. Which country was it for?


Afghanistan 2 5%

Egypt, Arab Rep. 2 5%

Iraq 2 5%

Malawi 2 5%

Sri Lanka 2 5%

Albania 1 3%

Belarus 1 3%

Belize 1 3%

Botswana 1 3%

Burundi 1 3%

Cape Verde 1 3%

Comoros 1 3%

Croatia 1 3%

Eritrea 1 3%

Ghana 1 3%

Guinea 1 3%

Honduras 1 3%

Kosovo 1 3%

Lao PDR 1 3%

Liberia 1 3%

Marshall Islands 1 3%

Mexico 1 3%

Nicaragua 1 3%

Pakistan 1 3%

Panama 1 3%

Peru 1 3%

Poland 1 3%

Puerto Rico 1 3%

Romania 1 3%

Samoa 1 3%

Sierra Leone 1 3%

Turkey 1 3%

Ukraine 1 3%

Vietnam 1 3%

Yemen, Rep. 1 3%

Total 40 100%

33

Question 6. What period did this latest country strategy document cover?

Responses - Year Began No. of Respondents Share of Respondents

2013 9 23%

2012 8 20%

2008 7 18%

2009 4 10%

2006 3 8%

2010 3 8%

2011 3 8%

2004 1 3%

2005 1 3%

2014 1 3%

2007 0 0%

Total 40 100%


Responses - Year End(ed) No. of Respondents Share of Respondents

2016 11 28%

2014 5 13%

2012 4 10%

2013 4 10%

2009 3 8%

2015 3 8%

2017 3 8%

2010 2 5%

2011 2 5%

2007 1 3%

2008 0 0%

Ongoing/ No response 2 5%

Total 40 100%

34


Responses - Year Median (rounded to nearest year) No. of Respondents Share of Respondents

2014 10 25%

2015 7 18%

2011 6 15%

2010 4 10%

2008 3 8%

2013 3 8%

2009 2 5%

2012 2 5%

2006 1 3%

2007 1 3%

2016 1 3%

2004 0 0%

2005 0 0%

2017 0 0%

Total 40 100%


Responses – Length of Time in Years No. of Respondents Share of Respondents

3 16 40%

4 14 35%

5 4 10%

2 3 8%

1 1 3%

Ongoing/ No response 2 5%

Total 40 100%

Question 7. What was your job title then?


Same as now 26 65%

Other 14 35%

Total 40 100%

35

Question 8. How detailed is this country strategy document regarding areas for environmental interventions (i.e. interventions related to the production of local and/or global environmental benefits)?

Responses No. of


Respondents No. of


Respondents

The country strategy document describes well-defined environmental intervention areas in specific terms so that only selected types of environment projects fit with the country strategy document

11 29% 11 28%

The level of guidance and selectivity in the country strategic document differs for individual environmental intervention areas: some are specific, some are not

8 21% 8 20%

The country strategy document describes and prioritizes general environmental intervention areas but is not selective regarding types of projects within those areas

8 21% 8 20%

The country strategy document does not provide much guidance about which environmental intervention areas to focus on

6 16% 6 15%

The country strategy document does not mention environmental intervention areas much at all

5 13% 5 13%

No response

2 5%

Total 38 100% 40 100%


36

Question 9. In your opinion, how strongly have the following factors influenced environmental aspects in the country strategy document?

Responses by Subquestiona Strongly influenced

Somewhat influenced

Did not influence

No response

Total

Input and advice from regional ENV sector staff 18 10 11 1 40

Input and advice from regional sector staff from other sectors

12 17 8 3 40

Environmental aspects in the World Bank's regional strategies or regional environmental strategies

10 21 7 2 40

Input and plans from the Ministry of Environment 9 20 10 1 40

Input and plans from another ministry / other ministries

8 20 9 3 40

Environmental aspects in other World Bank sector strategies

5 21 11 3 40

Input and plans from the Ministry of Finance 9 14 15 2 40

The availability of GEF grant financing 6 17 16 1 40

The World Bank's environment strategies of 2001 and 2012

5 16 17 2 40

Input and advice from the World Bank GEF regional coordinator

3 14 19 4 40

That the country is one of the 48 pilot countries for the Climate Investment Funds (CIF)

4 9 21 6 40

Innovative approaches arising from the GEF 1 13 23 3 40

GEF strategies 1 12 23 4 40

Input and advice from the World Bank GEF Coordination Office

0 6 31 3 40


37

Question 10. In your opinion, how do poverty alleviation and environmental objectives relate to each other? Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements

Responses by Subquestiona Fully agree

Agree somewhat

Disagree somewhat

Fully disagree

No response

Total

In the long term, poverty alleviation and protecting the environment almost always represent win-win scenarios, i.e. there is usually no opportunity cost regarding poverty alleviation when allocating resources to environmental interventions

14 17 3 0 6 40

In the short term, there is usually a trade-off between poverty alleviation and environment objectives

5 21 7 0 7 40

In the short term, poverty alleviation and protecting the environment almost always represent win-win scenarios, i.e. there is usually no opportunity cost regarding poverty alleviation when allocating resources to environmental interventions

1 11 17 3 8 40

In the long term, there is usually a trade-off between poverty alleviation and environment objectives

0 8 15 9 8 40


38

Question 12. In your opinion, in practical terms, how should activities that have environmental benefits as a main objective be funded by the Bank?


Agree somewhat

Disagree somewhat

Fully disagree

No response

Total

IBRD and IDA should fund projects with primarily environmental objectives if the country explicitly and actively requests it

23 9 0 1 7 40

IBRD and IDA should readily fund projects with primarily environmental objectives

7 15 9 2 7 40

IBRD and IDA should only fund projects with primarily environmental objectives if there is a strong case (i.e. a convincing causal link) for significant poverty alleviation as a by-product

8 9 12 5 6 40

IBRD and IDA should only fund projects with primarily environmental objectives if they are aimed at producing local environment benefits: other donors (such as the GEF or the Climate Investment Funds) should co-fund the incremental cost to produce global environmental benefis

8 12 5 10 5 40

IBRD and IDA should not fund projects with primarily environmental objectives per se: other donors (such as the GEF or the Climate Investment Funds) should co-fund the cost associated with pursuing environmental objectives in addition to poverty alleviation

1 10 14 8 7 40


39

Question 14. In your opinion, how realistic are the following scenarios for projects with both World Bank and GEF funding, i.e. for blended World Bank-GEF projects:

Responses by Subquestiona Very realistic

Somewhat realistic

Somewhat unrealistic

Very unrealistic

No response

Total

The GEF component transforms the World Bank project: together with the GEF component, the World Bank component now produces substantially more environmental benefits. In terms of environmental benefits, the whole is considerably larger than the sum of both separate components

8 19 4 0 9 40

The GEF component builds on the World Bank component but does not transform it: without the World Bank project, the GEF component doesn’t make much sense while the World Bank component would produce very similar benefits whether there is a GEF component or not

5 14 9 2 10 40

The GEF and World Bank components are essentially separate sub-projects without substantial synergies between them: without the World Bank component, the GEF component would produce very similar environmental benefits and the World Bank component would produce very similar benefits whether there is a GEF component or not

2 6 13 8 11 40


40

Question 15. GEF grants are also available to the World Bank for stand-alone projects, i.e. activities that are implemented by the World Bank but NOT blended with any World Bank-financed activities. However, these stand-alone GEF projects are supposed to be related to existing or planned baseline activities in the country that produce local development benefits. Baseline activities might consist of government plans or programs, projects financed by multi- or bilateral development agencies (incl. the World Bank), NGO initiatives, etc. In your opinion, how realistic are the following scenarios for a World Bank-implemented stand-alone GEF project related to baseline activities:

Responses by Subquestiona Very

realistic Somewhat

realistic Somewhat unrealistic

Very unrealistic

No response

Total

The GEF project builds on the baseline activities but does not transform them: without the baseline activities, the GEF project doesn’t make much sense while the baseline activities would produce very similar benefits whether there is a GEF project or not

6 11 7 2 14 40

The GEF project transforms the baseline activities: together with the GEF project, the baseline activities now produce substantially more environmental benefits. In terms of environmental benefits, the whole is considerably larger than the sum of both separate components

4 16 5 3 12 40

The GEF project and the baseline activities are essentially separate sub-projects without substantial synergies between them: without the baseline activities, the GEF project would produce very similar environmental benefits and the baseline activities would produce very similar benefits whether there is a GEF project or not

3 8 11 4 14 40


41

Open-ended questions Respondents were able to freely respond to questions. Open-ended responses were grouped by shared commonalities; more than one commonality is possible per response. Open-ended questions consist of both stand-alone questions and additional comments to closed-ended questions. The difference is noted by each individual question. Question 2. What is your current precise job title?



Country Manager 5 13%

Country Program Coordinator 4 10%

Senior Economist 4 10%

Senior Country Economist 4 10%

Senior Country Officer 4 10%

Senior Operations Officer 3 8%

Lead Economist 2 5%

Country Economist 2 5%

Country Director 2 5%

Country Operations Adviser 1 3%

Principal Strategy Officer 1 3%

Senior Land Administration Specialist 1 3%

Economic Adviser 1 3%

Lead Public Sector Specialist 1 3%

Special Representative 1 3%

Senior Advisor 1 3%

Regional Team Leader 1 3%

Lead Country Officer 1 3%

Director 1 3%

Total 40 100%

42

Question 7. What was your job title then?

Other Responses


Lead Economist 2 14%

Country Program Coordinator 2 14%

Country Manager 2 14%

Operations Officer 1 7%

Senior Country Officer 1 7%

Senior Strategy Officer 1 7%

Country Economist 1 7%

Senior Country Economist 1 7%

Economist 1 7%

Country Officer 1 7%

Lead Financial Sector Specialist 1 7%

Total 14 100%

Question 8. How detailed is this country strategy document regarding areas for environmental interventions (i.e. interventions related to the production of local and/or global environmental benefits)?



Country strategy document generality can have positive implications

4 40%

Total 4 40%

Question 10. In your opinion, how do poverty alleviation and environmental objectives relate to each other? Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements



Opportunity costs of resource allocation in short term 4 31%

Environmental issues directly linked to quality of life 3 23%

Resource allocation sometimes causes competition between objectives (different payoff periods)

2 15%

Depends on the country and economic structure 2 15%

Total 11 85%

43

Question 11. To what extent do your answers to the previous question depend on whether the environmental objective of an intervention is to produce local or global environmental benefits? Please explain.

Stand-Alone Question (only responses with 2 or more responses included)


Responses based on local environmental benefits 4 14%

Global benefits long term and would represent greater trade-off with poverty reduction 4 14%

No connection between poverty alleviation and the environment

3 11%

Local or global not a factor 3 11%

Poverty alleviation and the environment are directly linked so a trade-off is difficult

2 7%

Local benefits are usually more direct and demonstrate better connection between poverty alleviation and the environment

2 7%

To a certain extent 2 7%

Total 20 71%

44

Results of Survey 4: World Bank Task Team Leaders

The following survey was sent to 381 World Bank Task Team Leaders (“TTL”), of whom 134 responded (35%). Of these 134 respondents, 113 were included in the survey results, based on the level of response completeness (30%). The survey split the respondents into three (3) groups dependent upon the respondent’s history as a TTL of a GEF project and his or her participation in a related survey conducted by the World Bank’s GEF Coordination Team, herein termed and noted where applicable as the “ENVIA” survey. The three (3) distinct groups consisted of those who:

A. Have never been the TTL of a GEF project B. Have been the TTL of a GEF project and answered the ENVIA survey C. Have been the TTL of a GEF project but did not answer the ENVIA survey

Each respondent then answered their respective group of questions based on his or her classification. Certain questions were posed to each group, however, and when done so, these responses have been combined to maximize the answer pool. Moreover, the ENVIA survey results (51 respondents) have been incorporated into the survey results from this review to further maximize the answer pool when the exact same question was posed in both surveys. Close-ended questions Respondents limited to a set of pre-determined responses. The following questions were answered by all three (3) of the aforementioned groups (“A”,”B”,”C”). Question 2. In which region(s) have you mainly acted as TTL for World Bank projects with ENRM as primary theme?

Responsesa No. of Respondentsb


No. of Respondentsc


Africa (AFR) 22 19% 42 23%

East Asia and Pacific (EAP) 26 23% 39 22%

Eastern Europe and Central Asia (ECA)

16 14% 27 15%

Latin America and the Caribbean (LRC)

13 12% 24 13%

Middle East and North Africa (MNA)

6 5% 14 8%

South Asia (SAR) 12 11% 12 7%

More than one region 9 8% 9 5%

Other 5 4% 8 4%

No response 4 4% 6 3%

Total 113 100% 181 100%

a. Includes no responses b. Without ENVIA c. With ENVIA

45

Question 3. Which of the following applies to you? (Select one) Depending on your answer, you will be directed to the relevant questionnaire.


I have been the TTL of one or more GEF projects and I have NOT answered the recent survey by the World Bank’s GEF Coordination Team (ENVIA)

55 49%

I have never been the TTL of a GEF project

47 42%

I have been the TTL of one or more GEF projects and I have answered the recent survey by the World Bank’s GEF Coordination Team (ENVIA)

11 10%

Total 113 100%

Question 4. What has been the main focal area of the GEF project(s) you were involved with?

Responsesa No. of


Respondents No. of

Respondentsc Share of

Respondents

Climate change mitigation 26 23% 39 23%

I have never been the TTL of a GEF project

33 29% 33 20%

Biodiversity 14 12% 24 14%

Multi-focal area 6 5% 18 11%

International waters 8 7% 14 8%

Land degradation 8 7% 11 7%

Climate change adaptation 4 4% 6 4%

Chemicals/POPs 3 3% 5 3%

Sustainable forest management 3 3% 3 2%

Ozone layer depletion 2 2% 2 1%

Other 1 1% 1 1%

No response 5 4% 11 7%

Total 113 100% 167 100%

a. Includes no responses b. Without ENVIA c. With ENVIA

46

Questions 6 & 7 & 24. In your opinion, what are the main hurdles (if any) for implementing GEF projects in the Bank? Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements.

Responses by Subquestiona Strongly agree

Agree somewhat

Disagree somewhat

Strongly disagree

No response

Total

The GEF and the WB project cycles have not been sufficiently harmonized

38 38 11 0 26 113

GEF projects cause delay in the WB project cycle

30 38 17 1 27 113

Additional reporting requirements for GEF projects make them less attractive

29 41 16 1 26 113

The amount of GEF project grants is not worth the effort that needs to be invested in the preparation of a GEF project

27 37 20 2 27 113

Project preparation funds for GEF projects are insufficient

20 41 23 1 28 113

My management is reluctant to implement GEF projects

8 30 35 9 31 113

The support provided by the World Bank GEF Coordination Unit and Regional Coordinators in preparing GEF projects is insufficient

8 28 41 7 29 113

The World Bank staff lacks access to GEF in-country decision-makers, such as GEF Focal Points

8 30 29 18 28 113

The country(ies) is/are not interested in GEF funding

4 8 37 33 31 113

I personally lack expertise and/or interest in GEF focal areas

3 16 25 42 27 113


47

The following questions were answered by two (2) of the aforementioned groups (”B”,”C”). Questions 8 & 27. During the last GEF Council meeting, participants agreed to further streamline the GEF project cycle vis-a-vis all GEF agencies. In your opinion, how could the project cycle between the GEF and its agencies be further streamlined? Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements: (statements are sometimes formulated in a provocative way in order to trigger your reaction. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the evaluators)


agree Agree

somewhat Disagree


No response

Total

GEF Program Managers should reject weak proposals

31 15 8 0 12 66

GEF Program Managers should help weak proposals reach GEF eligibility 28 21 5 0 12 66

The quality control for World Bank implemented GEF projects should be entirely entrusted to the World Bank; the GEF should exert quality control only retrospectively (i.e. through the review of closed projects)

24 26 2 2 12 66

The project information transmitted to the GEF Secretariat should be reduced to focus only on the consistency of the project with GEF strategies and policies

23 23 8 1 11 66

The review of project proposals by the GEF Secretariat should be focused only on the consistency of the project with GEF strategies and policies

21 20 14 0 11 66

In the GEF review of project proposals, the quality of project design should be at least as important as the consistency with GEF strategies and policies

23 20 6 6 11 66

Consultant costs should remain part of the information transmitted to the GEF

8 30 9 5 14 66

Project management costs should NOT be part of the information transmitted to the GEF

9 16 24 4 13 66


48

Questions 9 & 28. In addition to the general streamlining measures discussed in the previous question, the World Bank and the GEF are currently discussing a pilot for a further simplified project cycle. GEF staff would participate in key decision meetings of the World Bank. Instead of submitting PIF and CEO Endorsement templates, the World Bank would submit its own project documents. Project review by the GEF would be based on World Bank's Project Concept Notes and Project Appraisal Documents. Further documentation required is being discussed. In your opinion, what would be the impact contribution of the simplification measures described below? Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements: (Statements are sometimes formulated in a provocative way in order to trigger your reaction. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the evaluators)


agree Agree

somewhat Disagree


No response

Total

The World Bank's project cycle is well designed to produce high quality projects and the GEF should take advantage of it and avoid duplication

36 20 0 0 10 66

Adapting the GEF project cycle to the World Bank's cycle would make the coordination smoother so that capacity requirements are reduced on both the GEF Secretariat and the World Bank sides

38 16 1 1 10 66

The participation of GEF staff in the World Bank Project Concept Review Meeting will contribute to enhanced project quality

27 26 3 0 10 66

The participation of GEF staff in the World Bank Project Appraisal Decision Meeting will contribute to enhanced project quality

24 26 5 0 11 66

Adapting the GEF project cycle to the World Bank's cycle would reduce overall workload but shift workload from the World Bank to GEF Secretariat staff

6 15 19 14 12 66

The World Bank's project cycle is not conducive to meet GEF-specific standards and GEF-specific steps in the project cycle are of crucial importance

3 6 28 19 10 66

Using only World Bank Project Concept Note instead of the PIF would negatively affect the quality of World Bank-implemented GEF projects

7 4 15 30 10 66

Completely leaving out the GEF template for the CEO Endorsement Request for World Bank-implemented projects would negatively affect the quality of the projects

3 9 15 28 11 66

Adapting the GEF project cycle to the World Bank would increase overall workload

2 6 20 28 10 66

Reducing the requirements of the GEF template for the CEO Endorsement Request for World Bank-implemented GEF projects would negatively affect the quality of the projects

2 6 15 31 12 66


49

Questions 10 & 17. How detailed is the country strategy document (Country Assistance Strategy/Country Partnership Strategy) in the country of your last GEF project regarding areas for environmental interventions? If your last GEF project involved more than one country, please select the option that best applies and use the box below to comment on your choice.

Responses No. of


Respondents No. of


Respondents

The country strategy document describes and prioritizes general environmental intervention areas but is not selective regarding types of projects within those areas

32 52% 32 48%

The level of guidance and selectivity in the country strategic document differs for individual environmental intervention areas: some are specific, some are not

9 15% 9 14%

The country strategy document describes well-defined environmental intervention areas in specific terms so that only selected types of environment projects fit with the country strategy document

9 15% 9 14%

The country strategy document does not provide much guidance about which environmental intervention areas to focus on

4 7% 4 6%

The country strategy document does not mention environmental intervention areas much at all

3 5% 3 5%

Please comment on your answer 4 7% 4 6%

No response

5 8%

Total 61 100% 66 100%


50

Questions 11 & 18. In your opinion, how strongly have the following factors influenced environmental aspects in the CAS/CPS in this country?

Responses by Subquestiona Strong influence

Minor influence

No influence

No response

Total

Input and plans from the Ministry of Environment 33 18 3 12 66

The availability of GEF grant financing 36 16 5 9 66

Input and advice from regional ENV sector staff 27 20 7 12 66

Input and plans from another ministry / other ministries 22 25 6 13 66

Environmental aspects in other World Bank sector strategies

21 30 6 9 66

Environmental aspects in the World Bank's regional strategies or regional environmental strategies

20 27 7 12 66

Input and advice from regional sector staff from other sectors

19 27 8 12 66

The World Bank's environment strategies of 2001 and 2012

17 28 10 11 66

Input and plans from the Ministry of Finance 15 28 11 12 66

GEF strategies 16 23 13 14 66

Input and advice from the World Bank GEF Regional Coordinator

18 22 15 11 66

Innovative approaches arising from the GEF 14 23 16 13 66

Input and advice from the World Bank GEF Coordination Unit

14 23 19 10 66

That the country is one of the 48 pilot countries for the Climate Investment Funds (CIF)

10 15 27 14 66


51

Questions 12 & 19. In your opinion, how do poverty alleviation and environmental objectives relate to each other? Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements


Agree somewhat

Disagree somewhat

Fully disagree

No response

Total

In the long term, poverty alleviation and protecting the environment almost always represent win-win scenarios, i.e. there is usually no opportunity cost regarding poverty alleviation when allocating resources to environmental interventions

28 28 5 1 4 66

In the short term, there is usually a trade-off between poverty alleviation and environment objectives

15 32 12 3 4 66

In the short term, poverty alleviation and protecting the environment almost always represent win-win scenarios, i.e. there is usually no opportunity cost regarding poverty alleviation when allocating resources to environmental interventions

5 21 31 4 5 66

In the long term, there is usually a trade-off between poverty alleviation and environment objectives

6 18 25 11 6 66


52

Questions 13 & 20. In your opinion, in practical terms, how should activities that have environmental benefits as a main objective be funded by the Bank? Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:


Agree somewhat

Disagree somewhat

Fully disagree

No response

Total

IBRD and IDA should fund projects with primarily environmental objectives if the country explicitly and actively requests it

40 17 3 0 6 66

IBRD and IDA should readily fund projects with primarily environmental objectives

25 23 11 0 7 66

IBRD and IDA should only fund projects with primarily environmental objectives if there is a strong case (i.e. a convincing causal link) for significant poverty alleviation as a by-product

12 16 22 10 6 66

IBRD and IDA should only fund projects with primarily environmental objectives if they are aimed at producing local environment benefits: other donors (such as the GEF or the Climate Investment Funds) should co-fund the incremental cost to produce global environmental benefits

12 15 20 13 6 66

IBRD and IDA should not fund projects with primarily environmental objectives per se: other donors (such as the GEF or the Climate Investment Funds) should co-fund the cost associated with pursuing environmental objectives in addition to poverty alleviation

6 8 19 27 6 66


53

Questions 14 & 21. In your experience, how often do the following scenarios happen for projects with both World Bank and GEF funding, i.e. for blended World Bank-GEF projects:


Always In 3 out of 4 projects

In half of the

projects

In 1 out of 4 projects

Virtually never

No response

Total

The GEF component transforms the World Bank project: together with the GEF component, the World Bank component now produces substantially more environmental benefits. In terms of environmental benefits, the whole is considerably larger than the sum of both separate components

8 18 13 14 4 9 66

The GEF component builds on the World Bank component but does not transform it: without the World Bank project, the GEF component doesn’t make much sense while the World Bank component would produce very similar benefits whether or not there is a GEF component

3 9 15 18 12 9 66

The GEF and World Bank components are essentially separate sub-projects without substantial synergies between them: without the World Bank component, the GEF component would produce very similar environmental benefits and the World Bank component would produce very similar benefits whether or not there is a GEF component

2 4 18 18 18 6 66


54

Questions 15 & 22. GEF grants are also available to the World Bank for stand-alone projects, i.e. for activities that are implemented by the World Bank but NOT blended with any World Bank-financed activities. These stand-alone GEF projects must however be related to existing or planned baseline activities in the country that produce local development benefits. Baseline activities might consist of government plans or programs, projects financed by multi- or bilateral development agencies (incl. the World Bank), NGO initiatives, etc. In your experience, how often do the following scenarios happen for a World Bank-implemented stand-alone GEF project related to baseline activities:


Always In 3 out of 4 projects

In half of the

projects

In 1 out of 4 projects

Virtually never

No response

Total

The GEF project transforms the baseline activities: together with the GEF project, the baseline activities now produce substantially more environmental benefits. In terms of environmental benefits, the whole is considerably larger than the sum of both separate components

12 14 17 9 5 9 66

The GEF project builds on the baseline activities but does not transform them: without the baseline activities, the GEF project doesn’t make much sense while the baseline activities would produce very similar benefits whether or not there is a GEF project

7 9 14 14 13 9 66

The GEF project and baseline activities are essentially separate sub-projects without substantial synergies between them: without the baselie activities, the GEF project would produce very similar environmental benefits and the baseline activities would produce very similar benefits whether or not there is a GEF project

5 5 11 14 22 9 66


55

The following questions were answered by one (1) of the aforementioned groups (“C”). Question 25. Which parts of the GEF project cycle need to be simplified the most? (Please indicate priorities by checking one for each row)

Responses by Subquestiona,b

Very Insignificant

Moderately Insignificant

Moderately Significant

Very Significant

Don’t Know/Not

Sure

No response

Total

Implementation and supervision

21 30 21 15 4 15 106

Project start-up and effectiveness

17 34 21 11 9 14 106

Project completion and evaluation

17 21 29 16 8 15 106

Project identification stage

13 20 32 20 8 13 106

Consultations with country stakeholders including GEF Focal Point

11 22 25 27 7 14 106

Project preparation stage

6 21 30 27 6 16 106

Appraisal stage 7 19 32 25 8 15 106

Concept stage 3 20 26 37 5 15 106

Approval stage 5 14 25 43 9 10 106


b. With ENVIA

Question 26. In what way are you involved with GEF staff during project preparation prior to the PIF review?

Responses by Subquestiona Most of the

time Often Sometimes Rarely Never

No response

Total

GEF staff are not involved in project preparation prior to the PIF

12 7 12 7 5 12 55

Contacts with GEF staff on a project idea is managed by the GEF Coordination Office

6 8 13 6 7 15 55

I discuss GEF project ideas with a GEF Program Manager 4 5 12 12 7 15 55

I contact a GEF Program Manager directly with an idea for a GEF project

5 6 9 13 9 13 55

A GEF Program Manager contacts me directly with an idea for a GEF project

1 1 9 15 15 14 55


56

Question 30. What would you need GEF funding for most in future? (Check one for each row)

Responses by Subquestiona,b

Very Unimportant

Somewhat Unimportant

Somewhat Important

Very Important

Don’t Know/

Not Sure

No response

Total

Grants that make loans more cost-effective 4 16 36 32 3 15 106

Activities that are not normally covered in IDA or IBRD projects

7 8 32 42 1 16 106

Technical assistance and capacity building for LDCs/SIDSs

4 17 28 34 8 15 106

Programmatic initiatives bringing together donors, countries, and themes

5 11 30 42 2 16 106

Making investment projects more environmentally sustainable

5 10 30 44 1 16 106

Influence policy and sector dialogue on sustainable development

5 9 31 43 2 16 106

Country projects in climate change mitigation

5 10 24 49 2 16 106

Expand support to climate change adaptation

6 6 21 52 4 17 106

Trying out new ideas as entry point for clients and in sectors

3 3 33 49 1 17 106

Country projects in POPs/ chemicals

3 14 24 29 19 17 106

Innovative ideas or testing of approaches for scaleup

3 1 21 65 0 16 106

Country projects in Natural Resource Management (biodiversity, land, water)

3 3 24 52 8 16 106


b. With ENVIA

57

Open-ended questions Respondents were able to freely respond to questions. Open-ended responses were grouped by shared commonalities; more than one commonality is possible per response. Open-ended questions consist of both stand-alone questions and additional comments to closed-ended questions. The difference is noted by each individual question. The following questions were answered by all three (3) of the aforementioned groups (“A”,”B”,”C”). Questions 6 & 7 & 24. In your opinion, what are the main hurdles (if any) for implementing GEF projects in the Bank? Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements.



Process difficult to work with 3 13%

Lack of coordination between the World Bank and GEF (e.g., cycles, processes)

3 13%

Have not had opportunity to participate in GEF project 3 13%

Supervisory budget insufficient 2 8%

Not applicable/I don't know 4 17%

Total 15 63%

Question 32. Did we forget anything? Please add any suggestion, comment or feedback in the box below.



Survey issues (e.g., format, focus, respondent type) 4 13%

Increase or modify GEF funding 3 9%

GEF should broaden support areas 3 9%

GEF process simplification: need for clarity of GEF process 3 9%

No comments or suggestions 4 13%

Total 17 53%

58

The following question was answered by one (1) of the aforementioned groups (”A”). Question 5. What were the main reasons you have never been the TTL of a GEF project?



Opportunity not yet arisen or sought after 14 17%

No GEF projects 8 10%

Lack of information / desire for additional complexity of GEF project 4 5%

Work in non-environmental sector 4 5%

Not (in area of) specialty 3 4%

TTL on non-GEF projects 2 2%

Occupied with non-GEF projects 2 2%

Co-TTL of GEF projects 2 2%

Total 39 46%

The following question was answered by two (2) of the aforementioned groups (“B”, “C”). Questions 16 & 23. What impact did your experience with GEF projects have on your personal professional development and on your unit?



Experience beneficial to professional development 6 12%

Increased unit's investment projects 4 8%

Raised awareness of global environmental issues 4 8%

Learned about complexity of GEF project preparation process 4 8%

Managerial/operational skills developed 3 6%

GEF brings together/provides project funding 3 6%

GEF brings focus to connection between environment and poverty/development

2 4%

GEF project had significant impact 2 4%

GEF projects contribute to innovation 2 4%

Not enough experience to comment 2 4%

Total 32 64%

59

The following question was answered by one (1) of the aforementioned groups (“C”). Question 29. Please use the space below to explain or give details about any positive or negative project cycle issues you have experienced.


Responsesa No. of


Respondents

Preparation process could be simplified/shortened (e.g., infrequent PIF reviews, one month needed for CEO Endorsement)

9 16%

Lack of coordination between World Bank and GEF (e.g., different project cycles, repititous document preparation)

7 12%

GEF process has high transaction cost and intensity 6 11%

Approval process has become too focused on unnecessary details unrelated to project quality

4 7%

GEF procedures are complicated/unclear 4 7%

Difficulties with technical tools and document requirements 3 5%

GEF process delayed 3 5%

Need modifications to project approval/review and reporting processes 3 5%

Difficulties with IDA-GEF blended projects 2 4%

Difficulties with GEF Focal Point 2 4%

Total 43 75%

a. Includes ENVIA

Question 31. Do you have additional suggestions about how the GEF and WB collaboration could be improved?


Responsesa No. of


Respondents

More frequent meetings between GEF and TTLs to discuss changes, issues, project performance

4 14%

Shift GEF Secretariat's focus to higher level involvement away from project details

2 7%

No suggestions 2 7%

Total 8 28%

a. Includes ENVIA

The World Bank Group’s Partnership with the Global...

Documents

Transcript of The World Bank Group’s Partnership with the Global...