{"query_echo":{"q":"","filters":{"analysis_type":["evaluability study"]},"warnings":[{"code":"facet_value_not_in_vocabulary","message":"Value 'evaluability study' for facet 'analysis_type' is not in the controlled vocabulary."}]},"total":{"value":2,"relation":"eq"},"page":1,"page_size":20,"self":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/api/v1/search?analysis_type=evaluability+study","stability":"beta","ai_marking":{"digital_source_type":{"uri":"http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/digitalsourcetype/trainedAlgorithmicMedia","name":"Created using Generative AI"},"notice":"Summary and key insights are generated using artificial intelligence."},"results":[{"id":"gclifun-005574","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/gclifun-005574","title":"Results management framework: Independent Evaluation Unit recommendations to improve the Results Management Framework","publisher":{"name":"Green Climate Fund","organization":"green-climate-fund"},"document_type":"report","language":"en","date_published":"2018-09-26","source_url":"https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/gcf-b21-20.pdf","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","geography_discussed","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The Independent Evaluation Unit (IEU) review of the GCF's Results Management Framework (RMF) finds that while the RMF helps classify projects into adaptation and mitigation themes, it suffers from critical flaws in its logical models and a lack of measurement protocols. The review reveals that 39% of approved projects lack impact indicators for at least one targeted result area, representing a reporting gap for USD 1.3 billion in investments. Key deficiencies include the absence of baseline data in 50% of projects and insufficient M&E budgeting in 70% of cases. The IEU recommends developing theories of change, creating a technical guide to consolidate scattered Board decisions, and strengthening the role of National Designated Authorities (NDAs) beyond the granting of non-objection letters. The report also notes that gender-related tools are not yet fully integrated into the RMF.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"gclifun-005574#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"The RMF lacks a consistent causal logic to guide projects toward long-term paradigm shifts. The adaptation model misclassifies 'strengthened adaptive capacity and reduced exposure to climate risk' as a project-level outcome when it resembles a Fund-level impact, and it omits critical enabling conditions such as technology, financial models, and private sector contributions.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"gclifun-005574#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"There is a critical absence of measurement protocols, definitions, and guidance for RMF indicators. This has led to inconsistent interpretations across GCF Secretariat divisions, meaning Accredited Entities (AEs) often face different standards depending on the unit they interact with.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"gclifun-005574#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The RMF is largely marginalized in practice, with GCF staff relying more on the Investment Framework (IF), Monitoring and Accountability Framework (MAF), and Risk Management Framework. The RMF is primarily used only to classify projects by result areas.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"gclifun-005574#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"A significant portion of the GCF portfolio lacks necessary impact indicators. Approximately 39% of approved projects (representing USD 1.363 billion in investments) are missing at least one impact indicator for their targeted result areas, with cross-cutting projects being the most affected (over 70%).","ai_generated":true,"unit":"gclifun-005574#insight-4","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Project proposals exhibit severe deficiencies in monitoring and evaluation (M&E) planning. Half of the approved projects have no plans to collect baseline data, and 70% have insufficiently planned and budgeted for M&E.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"gclifun-005574#insight-5","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The role of National Designated Authorities (NDAs) is insufficiently defined beyond the issuance of non-objection letters. This results in NDAs being excluded from project oversight and management after approval, and a failure to link GCF reporting with national M&E systems.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"gclifun-005574#insight-6","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Gender-related policies, toolkits, and action plans are not yet integrated into the RMF beyond the design of gender-sensitive reporting. While the number of gender-disaggregated indicators in proposals is increasing, the RMF lacks reporting standards for integrated gender results.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"gclifun-005574#insight-7","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The GCF's risk management approach, based on the COSO model, has a structural flaw: the 'third line of defence' is tasked to the Office of Internal Audit, which is not an independent office, contradicting the requirement for independent assurance.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"gclifun-005574#insight-8","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["climate finance","climate change adaptation","climate change mitigation","Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation","risk management","Sustainable Development Goals"],"geography_discussed":["Kenya","Rwanda","Vietnam","South Korea"],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["independent review","portfolio analysis","evaluability study"]},{"id":"gclifun-005582","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/gclifun-005582","title":"Results management framework: Independent Evaluation Unit recommendations to improve the Results Management Framework","publisher":{"name":"Green Climate Fund","organization":"green-climate-fund"},"document_type":"report","language":"en","date_published":"2018-02-01","source_url":"https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/gcf-b22-07.pdf","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","geography_discussed","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The IEU review finds that while the GCF's Results Management Framework (RMF) helps stakeholders focus on adaptation and mitigation, it suffers from critical flaws in its logic models, a lack of measurement protocols for indicators, and insufficient integration with national monitoring systems. A portfolio analysis of 74 approved projects revealed that 39% are missing at least one impact indicator for their targeted result areas, and 50% have no plans for baseline data collection. The review recommends that the GCF Secretariat develop theories of change for key thematic areas, establish clear measurement protocols, and better define the role of National Designated Authorities (NDAs) throughout the project cycle.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"gclifun-005582#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"The RMF lacks a consistent causal logic to guide projects toward long-term paradigm shifts, with flaws in both adaptation and mitigation logic models. The adaptation model neglects technology, financial and business models, and the private sector, while the mitigation model omits critical enabling conditions for a paradigm shift.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"gclifun-005582#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"There is a critical absence of measurement protocols, definitions, and guidance for the 43 indicators in the RMF and Performance Measurement Frameworks (PMFs). This has led to inconsistent interpretation of policies and the application of different standards across different Secretariat units.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"gclifun-005582#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The RMF is largely marginalized in practice, with Secretariat staff relying more on the Investment Framework (IF), Monitoring and Accountability Framework (MAF), and Risk Management Framework for guidance.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"gclifun-005582#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"A portfolio analysis of 74 approved projects shows that 39% (29 projects) are missing at least one impact indicator in their logframes for the result areas they target, representing a reporting gap for approximately USD 1.3 billion in investments.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"gclifun-005582#insight-4","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Cross-cutting projects are particularly prone to under-reporting, with over 70% of such proposals missing at least one impact indicator for their targeted results.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"gclifun-005582#insight-5","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The evaluability study of 74 proposals indicates significant deficiencies in M&E planning: 50% of projects have no plans for baseline data collection, and 70% have insufficiently planned and budgeted for M&E.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"gclifun-005582#insight-6","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The GCF has failed to produce guidance for the role of National Designated Authorities (NDAs) beyond the granting of non-objection letters, leading to a loss of opportunity to coordinate results and build country capacities.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"gclifun-005582#insight-7","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The GCF's risk management framework, based on the COSO model, contains inconsistencies, such as tasking the non-independent Office of Internal Audit with the 'third line of defence' and failing to distinguish between the roles of accredited entities (AEs) and implementing entities (IEs).","ai_generated":true,"unit":"gclifun-005582#insight-8","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Gender-related tools, such as the gender policy and toolkit, are not yet integrated into the RMF beyond the design of gender-sensitive reporting, and the Fund lacks aggregate portfolio-level indicators for gender achievements.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"gclifun-005582#insight-9","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["climate finance","climate change adaptation","climate change mitigation","Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation","risk management"],"geography_discussed":["Kenya","Rwanda","Vietnam","South Korea"],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["independent review","portfolio analysis","evaluability study"]}]}