OPS8 assesses the GEF’s progress in implementing and achieving the objectives outlined in the GEF-8 Programming Directions, which emphasize greater integration, innovation and risk management, inclusion, socioeconomic outcomes, enhanced policy coherence, and more efficient delivery of impact. Drawing on evidence from GEF projects, programs, policies, and institutional frameworks, OPS8 builds on the findings of OPS7 and introduces several new evaluation themes specific to the GEF-8 period:
OPS8 is based on the findings of 34 evaluations and studies conducted by the IEO over the 2022–25 period (box 1.1). Key evaluation parameters—such as relevance, impact, performance, and the catalytic role of the GEF—that were investigated in earlier OPSs are now a part of the regular work program of the IEO and addressed in all component OPS8 evaluations.
In conducting its evaluations, the GEF IEO has applied a diverse set of evaluation methods grounded in international good practice and adapted to the complexity of global environmental challenges. The approaches used in all evaluations underpinning OPS8 are methodologically rigorous, evidence based, and utilization focused. All evaluations apply a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative insights with quantitative tools and analytics to assess the performance, relevance, effectiveness, and impact of GEF interventions. Core methods include portfolio analysis, country case studies, thematic and impact evaluations, and stakeholder consultations, drawing on a variety of data sources such as project documents, field observations, interviews, and surveys. To strengthen the robustness and objectivity of its findings, the IEO also employs advanced quantitative methods, including the following:
The evaluation evidence was collected by the IEO between 2022 and 2025, including field missions conducted as part of the OPS8 evaluations. Local consultants supported these efforts by assisting with fieldwork and stakeholder engagement.
Where possible, analyses in OPS8 draw on the terminal evaluation reviews of 2,475 completed GEF projects and cover the entire GEF portfolio of 6,063 approved projects from the pilot phase through June 30, 2025. Particular attention is given to 669 completed projects for which terminal evaluations were received after the close of OPS7—the OPS8 terminal evaluation cohort—and 634 projects that were approved during the GEF-8 period through June 2025. Each evaluation underpinning this report was based on the most complete data on the portfolio or on the set of completed projects available at the time the evaluation was conducted during the OPS8 period. These evaluations also draw on completed assessments conducted by the independent evaluation offices of GEF Agencies during the GEF-8 period.
Figure 1.1 shows the general theory of change developed by the IEO as a framework for assessing the impacts of GEF interventions. The framework lays out the different aspects of GEF support that the IEO assesses in its evaluations:
Given the complex, long-term processes at play, the framework highlights how impact may only be evident decades after GEF support has ended. Where impact cannot yet be assessed, progress toward impact provides indicators of the GEF’s impact trajectory through two main pathways: the broader adoption of interventions by stakeholders without GEF support, and the transformational change of the social-ecological systems in which it works.
The framework explicitly links the GEF’s mandate to generate global environmental benefits with the safeguards designed to ensure that positive environmental outcomes enhance—or at least do not diminish—the social and economic well-being of people who depend on these resources. This includes examining potential synergies and trade-offs both across environmental outcomes and between environmental and socioeconomic outcomes, as well as any unintended negative effects of GEF support.
In addition to assessing the results of GEF support, the IEO assesses the GEF’s institutional processes and its partners’ contextual conditions that are necessary for achieving these results. By learning which contextual conditions enable and hinder results, the GEF can continually adapt its interventions to influence these conditions.
Limitations on evaluative evidence in the GEF have been highlighted in several evaluations of the IEO and in previous OPSs. For example, terminal evaluations are typically of completed projects begun in earlier GEF periods. Their findings thus may not reflect current practice but do provide valuable lessons for design and implementation. The results of recently designed programs such as the integrated programs have limited results, as they are at an early stage of implementation. To mitigate this limitation and extract useful information, formative evaluation approaches have been used to assess program/project design, quality at entry aspects, and early implementation—fully recognizing that findings could be different on completion.
Typically, impact evaluations and progress toward impact analyses search for evidence of impacts five to eight years after projects have been completed, with sometimes limited availability of baseline data. The Office’s recent use of geospatial analysis has provided flexibility in looking for environmental changes over longer periods of time, before and after project implementation, and provides a means to regenerate baseline data on important environmental indicators. Postcompletion methodologies were implemented to gain insights into the sustainability of GEF interventions and contributing factors.
Quality assurance of the component evaluations was conducted either through a review process or through circulation to a wide range of GEF stakeholders for comment on factual and analytical errors as well as on the feasibility of the recommendations. In all cases, the IEO responded to the various comments received; the Office remains fully responsible for any remaining errors. Most evaluations have been presented to the GEF Council and are available on the IEO website; the remainder will be posted following their presentation to Council.
Quality assurance for OPS8 has been provided by a team of five senior independent advisers with expertise in relevant subject and institutional matters and evaluation: Patricia Rogers, Stefan Schwager, Vinod Thomas, Hasan Tuluy, and Monika Weber-Fahr. Their statement on the quality of the report, and the extent to which the conclusions and recommendations are based on the evaluative evidence, is included as annex B.
