Evaluation Quality Assessment Template

GCF Evaluation Quality Assessment Tool

Version: 12 May 2025

REPORT RATING SUMMARY

QA notes

Reviewer guidance

Overall rating

#DIV/0!

• • • • •

Exceptional (96-100%)

Exceeds expectations for GCF evaluation quality

• • • • -

Very good (90-95%)

Effectively upholds expectations for GCF evaluation quality

• • • - -

Good (75-89%)

Generally meets expectations for GCF evaluation quality

• • - - -

Fair (50-74%)

Needs improvements to meet expectations for GCF evaluation quality

• - - - -

Unsatisfactory (<50%)

Does not meet GCF standards for evaluation quality

REPORT DETAILS

Title of report

Project number

Accredited Entity

Other Accredited Entity (n/a if not relevant)

Year of report

Coverage (countries/region)

ToR present

CLASSIFICATION OF EVALUATION REPORT

Classification info can be found in the Teams folder - Evaluation Reports-Report Details

GCF Region

Geographic coverage

Thematic area

Environment and Social Safeguards (ESS) Category

ESS categories indicate degree of risk with A being the highest risk. As such, the depth of analysis of ESS should be more thorough for A and B projects.

Project type

Project size

Entity type

Priority areas (LDCs, SIDS, Africa, N/A)

Type applicable categories separated by commas and no space (e.g. Least Developed Countries [LCDs], Small Island Developing States [SIDS]).

Private Sector Facility

Type of report

Evaluation design

Experimental requires a control group and random assignment. Quasi-experimental designs involve non-randomized comparisons using statistical methods like DiD and propensity scoring to avoid bias. Most evaluations are non-experimental.

OTHER FACTORS

Complexity factors (in conducting evaluation that may have affected quality – environment, project, stakeholders, evaluation process, other)

A breakdown of complexity factors includes: Environment – security, political instability. Stakeholders – unavailability. Project – complicated, no ToC, major project revision, unavailability of national climate data. Evaluation process – unclear management or ToRs. Other – describe. None apparent. Note the type of factor and make a brief description (e.g. "Evaluation process - limited number of days for assignment")

Evaluation budget

This is sometimes provided in the ToR. Use USD for designating currency not $, or "Not provided"

Management response included

Review Firm

Date of review

EQA SUMMARY (evaluation report)

Use this section to summarize how the evaluation report aligns with or falls short of GCF expectations for evaluation quality. Start with an introductory sentence describing the evaluated project and a broad assessment of the evaluation, e.g. "This report evaluates a project aimed at . . . Overall, it delivers a comprehensive assessment of a climate-focused initiative, offering actionable insights for decision-makers." Where applicable, emphasize good practices, areas for improvement, unique contributions, and the evaluation’s complexity. Ensure comments are consistent with the report’s overall rating. For reports rated Exceptional or Very Good, highlight their strengths for use in the GCF's institutional learning purposes. Remarks should cover how well the report addresses GCF evaluation priorities, such as robust climate impact analysis or thorough assessment of the project’s sustainability objectives. Additionally, 1-2 concluding sentences should clarify which evaluation criteria were effectively met or where deficiencies remain e.g. "All of the standard criteria were adequately covered. The analysis of Gender Equity was thorough and notable. However, other GCF-specific criteria received minimal attention and Unexpected Results were not covered." To assist with synthesizing EQA performance, use key search words where relevant, such as "notable", "exemplary", "good practice", "clear strength", "areas for improvement". Also, where relevant and appropriate, include "This document is not a final version of the evaluation report as it includes ...." and provide examples such as "reviewers comments and highlights".

#DIV/0!

COVERAGE OF EVALUATION CRITERIA

This relates to the Criteria Coverage sheet. No narrative comments needed.

ALIGNMENT WITH GCF STANDARDS (This assessment covers only Standards' indicators that may be found in evaluation reports and annexed ToRs. Partial alignment does not necessarily indicate non-compliance; in some cases, required elements - such as adherence to ethical practices - may have been fulfilled but not explicitly documented by the evaluation commissioners or evaluators.)

Start with something like "The overall Standards score was xx%" Then copy text from summary box in Standards sheet.

SECTION A

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (5%)

#DIV/0!

COMMENTS

Question 1

Can the executive summary inform decision-making?

Is clearly presented and reflects an analytical summary of progress or results per GCF's relevant thematic area.

A 'yes' rating requires a clear but not overly in-depth presentation that demonstrates climate-related progress or results in the relevant GCF thematic area. Rate 'mostly' if it is well written but does not clearly explain how project addresses climate change. Rate 'no' if this section is missing.

Serves as a standalone document to inform decision-making by including key elements such as an overview of the project, evaluation's purpose and objectives, its intended audience, the methodology used, key conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations presented in the main body of the report. (Lessons only required for final evaluations).

For 'yes', all necessary elements must be included. In the absence of 2 minor elements, such as purpose or objectives, intended audience, or lessons, rate as 'Mostly'. The summarized information must accurately reflect what is presented in the report. Assessing this requires revisiting the ES after reading the full report. THE METHODOLOGY MUST BE CLEAR. AT A MINIMUM, IT MUST DETAIL THE DATA COLLECTION PROCESSES, STAKEHOLDER GROUPS CONSULTED, AND TOTAL NUMBER OF EVALUATION RESPONDENTS. Use N/A is this section is missing.

iii

Is relevant and concise but sufficiently detailed for key users, with a maximum of 5 pages unless otherwise specified in ToR.

Regarding maximum length, check if this is specified in ToR and be sure to follow its advice. If the length is not specified in the ToR: rate 'yes' for up to 5 pages; 'partial' for 6-7; 'no' for 8 or more. Write N/A is this section is missing.

SECTION B

BACKGROUND (10%)

#DIV/0!

COMMENTS ON RATING

10%

Question 2

Is the object of the evaluation clearly described?

Clear and relevant description of the intervention, including general objectives, locations, timelines, cost or budget, and implementation status, including any extensions granted and their rationale.

For 'yes', there must be clear information on the project, objectives, locations, timelines, cost or budget, and implementation status, including any extensions and their rationale. Rate as 'mostly' if up to 2 of the following are missing: timelines, cost or budget, and implementation status. Rate as 'partly' if it the project's actions and purpose are not clear.

Clear and relevant description of intended rightsholders or beneficiaries and their needs and interests regarding mitigation or adaptation.

The description of beneficiaries or rightsholders should include their climate adaptation or mitigation needs and interests.

Question 3

Is the context of the intervention clearly described, including the climate-resilient pathways being addressed?

Clear and relevant description of the intervention's context and other key issues, such as policy, socio-economic, political, gender, cultural, institutional, international factors.

Ensure the elements presented are relevant to the evaluation subject and identify key contextual factors that impact the intervention, such as socio-economic, political, gender, and cultural factors.

Addresses the linkages or relevance to NDCs and other relevant global, regional, and national climate plans and commitments.

All reports must reference NDCs at a minimum. Medium and large projects need to reference other relevant climate plans or commitments. If links to global or regional plans are missing, note this as an area for improvement.

Question 4

Are key stakeholders, their relationships and contributions clearly identified?

Identifies implementing agency(ies), national implementing partners, local communities, social institutions, and other stakeholders.

A 'yes' requires a clear description of who is involved in organizing and implementing the project. If there are multiple government ministries, these should be named. Rate 'partly' if there is only a general indication these groups.

Identifies the specific contributions and roles of key stakeholders including all implementing agencies and government. Clearly explains the linkages between stakeholders, such as using a stakeholder map, and indicates how the AE has coordinated with other implementing agencies.

A 'yes' rating requires a clear explanation of what these different stakeholders do. Linkages between all implementers should be shown in the narrative, a table, or stakeholder map.

Question 5

Is the theory of change and/or the logical framework well-articulated?

Clear description of the intervention's intended objectives or main results.

A 'yes' rating requires these to be explicitly stated.

Presents the causal relationship between outputs and outcomes in narrative or graphic form e.g. results chain, logical framework, theory of change.

A 'yes' rating requires clear descriptions of the linkages between outputs, outcomes and objectives or impacts.

iii

The theory of change is assessed and, if needed, is reformulated/improved by the evaluators with the changes being explained. Assumptions are clearly articulated and are assessed for validity by evaluators. Note: this is not required for projects approved before 2020.

A 'yes' rating requires the evaluators to comment on the articulation of, and connections between, the various levels of results and the underlying assumptions (the word 'assumptions' does not need to be used). Weaknesses should be rectified. A complete reformulation is not necessary unless required by the ToR or if the overall ToC is assessed as weak. Note that a ToC is not required for projects approved before 2020. In such cases, use N/A if there are no ToC or assessment of ToC, unless requested in the ToR.

SECTION C

EVALUATION PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES, SCOPE AND CONDUCT (5%)

#DIV/0!

COMMENTS ON RATING

Question 6

Are the purpose and parameters clearly described?

Purpose of evaluation is clearly defined, including key intended uses and users.

For a 'yes' rating, the purpose of accountability or learning should be clear from the narrative, either explicitly or implicitly.

Clear description of evaluation objectives, including an assessment of the results related to climate mitigation or adaptation. Any changes made to the objectives included in the ToR are explained.

Objectives should specifically mention aspects of climate mitigation or adaptation assessment. Some leniency is permissible for micro projects.

iii

Clear description of the scope of the evaluation: what will and will not be covered thematically, chronologically, and geographically, and the scope's rationale if needed.

Alignment with the ToR's scope must be checked and an explanation provided for any major variances. The timeline covered can be implicitly addressed in the introduction or description of the evaluated intervention.

Question 7

Is the management and undertaking of the evaluation process clear and ensuring of independence?

Clear description of the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in the evaluation process, such as the commissioning AE, evaluation manager, NDA, EE, and reference group.

For a rating of 'yes', clear information must be provided about how the evaluation process was managed, including who was involved and how. Typically the evaluators will only be communicating with the AE. Ideally, a range of stakeholders contributed to developing the ToRs, reviewing deliverables, validation processes or providing input on the recommendations. If so, highlight this in the summary. Rate no higher than 'mostly' if the only mention of involvement is that the AE reviewed the draft evaluation report.

SECTION D

EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY (25%)

#DIV/0!

COMMENTS ON RATING

25%

Question 8

Does the evaluation systematically use questions and the relevant evaluation criteria appropriate for the purpose of the evaluation? GCF criteria include Relevance, Efficiency, Effectiveness, Sustainability, Impact, Coherence in Climate Finance Delivery, Gender Equity, Country Ownership and Unexpected Results. Final evaluations must also cover Innovativeness and Replicability/Scalability.

Evaluation questions and sub-questions covers all criteria and are appropriate for meeting the evaluation's objectives. They incorporate the assessment of project design and financial management.

Rate as 'mostly' if 1-2 criteria are missing. 'Partly' if 3-4. Criteria can be combined and country ownership can focus on local capacities. If some criteria are missing, evaluators are entitled to justify this. ToRs must reviewed to assess if the correct criteria were chosen. Ideally, each criterion has 1-3 questions, with supporting sub-questions. Rate no more than 'mostly' if project design or financial management are not covered. Note if any missing criteria were not requested in the ToR. See the file on the GCF evaluation criteria in the Reviewer Orientation folder for general guidance on how to address each criterion.

Questions address GCF's unique mandate in climate finance, focus on catalysing or potentially catalysing a paradigm shift to low-emission and climate-resilient development and progress against outcome indicators. (required for final evaluations; N/A if not addressed in interim reviews)

iii

A thorough evaluation matrix is presented that includes evaluation questions and sub questions, sources, methods and indicators or other metrics to measure achievement.

For a 'yes', the evaluation matrix must include achievement indicators, data sources and methods. Rate 'mostly' if indicators, metrics or sources or methods are missing but the matrix is otherwise adequate. 'Maximum' or 'partially' if data sources and methods are missing.

Question 9

Is the evaluation design and methodology sufficiently robust and enabling of credible findings?

Evaluation design or approach and set of methods are clearly explained, relevant and adequately robust for the evaluation's purpose, objectives, and scope; they enable causal connections to be drawn between outputs and expected outcomes.

A 'yes' requires an explanation of the overall evaluation design, approaches and data collection methods. Consider caerefully if the process is adequately robust for the type of project and suitable for evaluation purposes. Expectations are higher for medium and large projects.

Data sources are appropriate and adequate. Unless otherwise specified in the ToR, these normally include clearly described qualitative and quantitative sources. The number of respondents for each method is identified and the approach for achieving triangulation is clearly explained.

For 'yes', quantitative and qualitative sources should be clearly explained by specifying the number of respondents. The sources should be sufficient for triangulation given the purpose and limitations. 'Yes' requires some mention of triangulation.

iii

Sampling strategy is provided, explaining how diverse perspectives are captured or why they are not.

For 'yes', sampling strategy must be explained for the main data collection methods and it must be evident that diverse perspectives are captured and representative thematically, geographically or by stakeholder group. It is sufficient for evaluators to say the sample was purposive, except where large-scale data collection was used, in which case the explanation and rigour are expected to be higher.

Clear description of the methods of analysis. The type of analysis, such as descriptive or analytical statistics, and the data analysis processes such as using excel database for coding, AI, or other software are identified and described.

For a 'yes' rating, both the analysis's qualitative and quantitative methods should be described, including specific tools or processes used.

Clear description of limitations and constraints faced, their impact on the evaluation's quality, and how the evaluators addressed them to the extent feasible.

For 'yes', limitations need to be accompanied by mitigation strategies. Do not rate higher than 'mostly' if there are obvious but unidentified limitations.

Clear description of how the methodology was responsive to human rights, gender equality, Indigenous Peoples, disability, and other aspects of inclusion, including how the participation and representation of the range of beneficiaries and rightsholders was ensured. Evaluation respondents are disaggregated by gender and by other group relevant to the intervention.

Do not rate higher than 'mostly' if only gender responsiveness is addressed. There should be reference to consideration of at least 1 other aspect of inclusiveness. If several aspects of inclusion are addressed, identify this as an example of good practice, both here and in the EQA Summary Box.

Question 10

Are ethical issues and considerations described?

Steps taken to adhere to ethical principles and ensure ethical conduct within the evaluation process are described, including confidentiality, informed consent, respect for dignity and diversity, and the do no harm approach adopted when consulting beneficiaries, particularly minors and vulnerable groups.

For 'yes', evaluators should explain specific ethical steps or safeguards taken, such as measures to address confidentiality, informed consent, and protection of vulnerable groups (if relevant). Some of this information may be found in the introduction to the annexed data collection tools. Rate 'mostly' if this is limited to only mentioning UNEG ethical guidelines or codes of conduct were applied. 'Partially' if evaluators just state that the evaluation considered ethical issues but provide no further information.

SECTION E

EVALUATION FINDINGS (30%)

#DIV/0!

COMMENTS ON RATING

30%

Question 11

Do the findings clearly address the evaluation objectives and questions?

Findings marshal sufficient information to systematically address all the evaluation's questions related to the standard criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability. There is explicit reference to, and use of, the intervention's results framework or ToC, and climate results.

A 'yes' rating requires reasonably thorough responses to all criteria and questions, appropriate to project size and evaluation type, with explicit reference to the intervention's results framework or ToC, typically found under Effectiveness. Comments should indicate which criteria were well covered and which required improvement. See the file on GCF evaluation criteria in the Reviewer Orientation folder for general guidance on how to address each criterion.

Findings marshal sufficient information to systematically address all the evaluation's questions related to the additional GCF criteria of Coherence in Climate Finance Delivery, Gender Equity, Country Ownership, and Unexpected Results, as well as project design and financial management.

A 'yes' requires reasonably thorough responses to all criteria and questions, appropriate to project size and evaluation type. Financial performance should be included in the Efficiency or Effectiveness assessment or as stand-alone. An assessment of Quality of Project Design is required.

iii

Findings marshal sufficient information to systematically address the criteria of Innovativeness and Replicability or Scalability. They also assess contribution to paradigm shift and enabling environment ―using scorecards for project approved after May 2022 ― and assess and verify outcomes related to reduced emissions, increased sequestration or adaptation. (Required for final evaluations, n/a if not covered in midterm reviews)

Final evaluations must address innovativeness, replicability or scalability, and paradigm shift. Interim reviews can rate these as 'not applicable' if they are not covered. Paradigm shift does not have to be explicitly addressed; it can be referred to implicitly in terms of transformational change through climate mitigation or adaptation. Expectations are lower for micro and small projects. Also, adaptation and cross-cutting projects need to assess or validate direct and indirect beneficiaries reached, disaggregated by age and gender. Mitigation and cross-cutting projects need to assess or validate the level of GHG emissions reduced, avoided, removed. This is typically seen under Effectiveness. It is insufficient for evaluators to just use data from project reports. GCF scorecards must be used for projects approved during or after 2022. Refer to page 52/53 of the guidelines for more information.

Question 12

Are evaluation findings clearly presented? Are they derived from the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of the best available, objective, reliable and valid data and by accurate quantitative and qualitative analysis of evidence?

Evaluation uses credible forms of qualitative and quantitative data. It presents both output and outcome-level data as relevant to the evaluation framework. Triangulation is evident through the use of multiple data sources.

This question addresses the presence of qualitative and quantitative data. Data on outputs and outcomes should be provided where relevant. Main findings must be supported by multiple data sources.

Findings are clearly presented. They are supported by, and respond to, the evidence presented, including both positive and negative aspects. Findings are based on clear performance indicators, standards, benchmarks, or other means of comparison as relevant for each question. There is an in-depth level of analysis of outcome-level results in particular.

For a 'yes', key findings should be clearly stated or highlighted, the analysis of effectiveness must report on outcomes, not just outputs or activities, and include some indicators or comparisons, which can be drawn from the evaluation matrix.

iii

Causal factors, such as contextual, institutional, and managerial influences, affecting the achievement or non-achievement of results are clearly identified.

A rating of 'yes' requires an explanation of causal factors contributing to the achievement or non-achievement of results

Question 13

Does the evaluation address the intervention's Integrated Results Monitoring Framework (IRMF)?

Adequacy of the intervention's design and monitoring system is assessed, including the completeness and appropriateness of the results framework, monitoring tools, and their use to support decision-making.

A rating of 'yes' requires the inclusion of an assessment of the adequacy of the IRMF or monitoring system. Rate 'mostly' if it is briefly mentioned.

Use, communication and sharing of monitoring data and reporting for learning and accountability is assessed.

A 'yes' rating requires the evaluation to comment on how monitoring data informed decision-making, adaptive management, and/or learning. Rate no higher than 'mostly' if it only mentions data collection without including its utilization or addressing communication effectiveness.

SECTION F

EVALUATION CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED (5%)

#DIV/0!

COMMENTS ON RATING

Question 14

Do the conclusions clearly present an objective overall assessment of the intervention?

Conclusions are clearly formulated to reflect all evaluation criteria, including gender dimensions and inclusivity, accurately represent the findings, present the intervention's strengths and weaknesses and do not introduce new information.

For a 'yes', all criteria should be addressed, including gender dimensions and inclusivity. Ideally, conclusions are clearly presented by criteria or themes but this is not mandatory. Read the conclusions closely to ensure all criteria are addressed. Rate no more than 'mostly' if the presentation is not well structured.

Conclusions add insights beyond the findings, reflect the evaluation's purpose and objectives, and are sufficiently forward looking when implementation is ongoing or future phases are expected.

Conclusions should add insights beyond findings and be forward-looking where appropriate. Rate no higher than 'mostly' if findings-level information is provided, e.g. number of workshops held (unless this is a key result).

Question 15

Are logical and informative lessons learned identified?

Identified lessons stem logically from the findings and have wider applicability and relevance beyond the object of the evaluation. They are clearly and concisely presented with identified topics and include sufficient detail to support organizational learning (only required for final evaluations).

Lessons should be formulated differently from findings and conclusions, providing lessons learned for ongoing or future interventions. For a 'yes' rating, lessons must have wider applicability, be clearly presented with identified topics, and be concise yet sufficiently detailed to be understood. In most cases, a 'yes' rating requires no more than approximately 10 lessons or good practices.

SECTION G

RECOMMENDATIONS (10%)

#DIV/0!

COMMENTS ON RATING

10%

Question 16

Are recommendations well-grounded in the evaluation and useful?

Recommendations align with the evaluation's purpose and are logically derived from its findings and conclusions. They address major weaknesses identified in the findings, including those related to gender and ESS.

Major weakness identified in the findings or conclusions should have a corresponding recommendation. Ideally, these are linked to relevant numbered findings or conclusions. although this is not mandatory.

Recommendations are useful and realistic. They are actionable for the primary intended users and uses, specific and relevant to the intervention, and provide implementation guidance as appropriate.

A 'yes' rating requires recommendations to be actionable, realistic and reasonable in number, typically no more than 10-12. Generic recommendations without specifications are insufficient for a rating of 'yes.

Question 17

Are recommendations clearly presented?

Recommendations are clearly stated and attributed to the most relevant stakeholder for implementation, including a designated lead where multiple actors are responsible. (responsibility not required for small scale projects where target is clearly the AE)

For a 'yes' rating, recommendations must be presented with clear numbering and topic headings and identify stakeholders in a position to address them. This is not necessary for small-scale projects where the target is clearly the AE.

SECTION H

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SAFEGUARDS (5%)

#DIV/0!

COMMENTS ON RATING

Question 18

Are environmental and social safeguards (ESS) adequately addressed?

Analysis includes the extent to which project designers considered environmental, social and gender risks, and the efforts to avoid, mitigate and manage them, including through screening and assessment processes, and how these are reflected in the Environmental and Social Management Plans.

For a 'yes', a section of the analysis should examine if these risks were adequately incorporated in the project's design. This requires the evaluators to look at the project Funding Proposal, for which GCF typically requires an ESS assessment and ESM Plan. This assessment may appear in the evaluation's introductory section or findings. As gender has its own criterion, only address it here in relation to safeguards.

Analysis includes how well these risks and impacts have been monitored, managed and reported during project implementation. It also examines the extent of engagement with communities most affected. This includes whether monitoring addresses sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment (SEAH), captured adverse impacts by gender and age, and applied diligence and participatory monitoring. (depth of expected analysis is proportional to risk level)

A 'yes' requires the findings to include an assessment of the extent ESS was addressed during project implementation and cover all elements. The depth of the analysis should be proportional to the project's risk level, with Category A and B being the highest levels.

iii

Conclusions and recommendations reflect the analysis of ESS and address shortcomings found.

For a 'yes' rating, conclusions must reflect the ESS analysis and recommendations must address any shortcomings.

SECTION I

REPORT STRUCTURE AND PRESENTATION (5%)

#DIV/0!

COMMENTS ON RATING

Question 19

Does the evaluation report include all relevant information?

Opening pages include the name and project number of the evaluated component, along with its timeframe, reporting date and location. They also list the names or organizations or both of the evaluators, commissioning organization, and a table of contents.

Rate 'mostly' if 1 or 2 elements are missing from opening pages. 'Partly' if 3 and 'no' if 4 or more. A project information table is not required but should be noted if included.

Annexes should include, at a minimum, the ToR, evaluation matrix, the stakeholder groups participating as informants, data collection instruments, a list of documentary evidence and the ToC or logical framework or both unless already included in the main body of the report.

Rate 'mostly' if 1 required annex is missing, 'Partly' if 2 and 'no' if 3 or more.

Question 20

Is the report logically structured?

Report should be easy to navigate; for example, through numbered sections, clear headings, and consistent formatting.

For a 'yes', the report must be formatted in an easy way to follow.

Structure follows an easily discernible logical flow. Context, purpose, and methodology normally precede findings, which are usually followed by conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations.

The structure should follow a logical flow from context to recommendations. Lessons can appear before the conclusions or after the recommendations.

Question 21

Is the report well presented?

Report's length is appropriate. Excluding the opening pages and annexes, the body of the report does not exceed the ToR's specified number of pages or, if this is not specified, does not exceed 60 pages, with some flexibility for size of project and complexity.

The maximum is 60 for 'yes', 70 for 'mostly', 80 for 'partly' and above 80 for 'no'. 1-2 pages is sufficient. In some cases a longer report may be warranted, e.g. for complex and large projects.

Report is written in an accessible way for the intended audience and is generally free from grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

A 'yes' requires the report to be clearly written and contain minimal errors. Rate no higher than 'mostly' if the ToC is not properly formatted.

iii

Informative visual aids, such as infographics, maps, tables, figures, are used to convey key information. These are clearly presented and labelled, include their sources, and have an easily discerned relevance to the surrounding text.

To achieve a 'yes' rating, the report should include clearly labelled visual aids throughout the text. Their relevance should be evident; for example, through direct reference within the text or strategic placement within the narrative.

Assessment of Alignment with GCF Evaluation Standards					QA notes	Reviewer guidance
Across standards (CR) ⚪ \| 1. Independence (CR) ⚪ \| 2. Impartiality and Objectivity (CR) ⚪ \| 3. Utility and Value-Added (CR) ⚪ \| 4. Ownership and Participation (CR) ⚪ \| 5. Credibility and Rigour (CR) ⚪ \| 6. Transparency (CR) ⚪ \| 7. Learning (CR) ⚪ \| 8. Human Rights, Gender Equality and Environmental Considerations (CR) ⚪ \| 9. Confidentiality (CR) ⚪ \| 10. Cost Effectiveness (CR) ⚪ \| 11. Ethics (CR) ⚪ \| 12. Integrity (CR) ⚪ \| 13. Accountability (CR) ⚪ \| 14. Competence (CR) ⚪ \| 15. Respect and Beneficence (CR) ⚪				#REF!
REPORT RATING SUMMARY	Score range	Rating description				Updated 14 May 25
#DIV/0!	≥ 85%	Aligns with GCF Evaluation Standards
#DIV/0!	70–84%	Mostly aligns with GCF Evaluation Standards
#DIV/0!	50–69%	Needs substantial improvements to align with GCF Evaluation Standards
#DIV/0!	< 50%	Does not align with GCF Evaluation Standards
ToR attached to the evaluation report	Yes
ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
*Note that this assessment considers only Standards' indicators that may be found in evaluation reports and annexed ToRs. Partial alignment does not necessarily indicate non-compliance; in some cases, required elements -– such as adherence to ethical practices – may have been fulfilled but not explicitly documented by the evaluation commissioners or evaluators.						Start off with the ratings description and what limitations were faced, e.g. "This report was found to mostly align with GCF Evaluation Standards although the absence of the ToR presented significant limitations to this assessment." Briefly highlight where there were areas for improvement and any notable features. The sentence with the asterisk should be the last sentence in the box.
STANDARDS	Rating	Comments
	Note: CR = cannot rate due to insufficient information. N/A= not applicable to this evaluation
Across standards	CR
Does the ToR inform evaluators of the need to apply GCF evaluation standards and GCF evaluation criteria? (ToR)						Partly if only one element is present.
Does the ToR, at a minimum, contain a project/programme description, evaluation scope and objectives, evaluation questions, methodological guidance/preferences (while retaining flexibility), deliverables, team requirements, timeframe, and management structure of evaluation process? (ToR)						A rating of 'yes’ requires all, ‘partial’ if up to three elements missing, ‘no’ if more than three elements missing.
Does the ToR set out clear and unified set of instructions for the evaluation? (ToR)						‘Yes’ requires clear and coherent directions with a reasonable number of evaluation questions--’no’ more than 30. Partial if the directions are clear and there are up to 40 questions.
1. Independence	CR
Is it clear that the evaluation was conducted by external evaluators who were free of conflict of interest? (evaluation report)						‘Yes’ requires independence and no conflict of interest to be evident. Stating it was an independent evaluation and UNEG ethical guidance was followed is acceptable. ‘Partial’ if just one element mentioned.
Are evaluators informed of reporting responsibilities and mechanisms for conflicts of interest? (ToR)						The focus here is conflicts of interest and whether the ToR is explicit that evaluators need to report it if they see it.
2. Impartiality and Objectivity	CR
Does the evaluation appear to have been implemented in accordance with the ToR? (evaluation report)						‘Yes’ requires that the report is in general, not precise, alignment with what is requested in the ToR. Any major changes from the ToR should be explained in the evaluation report.
Is it evident that methods and tools for data collection, site selection and key informants were based on objective criteria to ensure the absence of bias? (evaluation report)						‘Yes’ requires some mention of a sampling strategy being used and neutral (non-leading) questions in the data collection protocols.
3. Utility and Value-Added	CR
Are the intended audiences of the evaluation results identified? (ToR and evaluation report)						‘Yes’ requires intended audience to be identified in both the evaluation report and ToR.
Is there clarity about how evaluation results are to be used (ToR and evaluation report)						‘Yes’ requires use of results to be noted in both documents.
Are evaluation findings and recommendations relevant and valuable to the work of the GCF and the work of the entity conducting the evaluation? (evaluation report)						It would be unusual for this not to be ‘Yes’ unless it is an Unsatisfactory report.
Are recommendations presented in a form that enables decision-makers to clearly identify their responsibility and track follow-up action? (evaluation report)						‘Yes’ requires recommendations to be clearly articulated, indicate who is responsible for action, and be of a reasonable number but not exceed 12.
4. Ownership and Participation	CR
Does the TOR clearly set out the major stakeholders and their interests, both in the subject of the evaluation and the evaluation itself, along with a plan for their consultation and engagement during the evaluation? This includes their review and comment on draft deliverables. (ToR)						‘Yes’ requires all elements. 'Partial' if there is clarity about either stakeholder involvement in the project or in the evaluation process.
Is it clear how stakeholders were engaged throughout the evaluation process in the evaluation approach or methodology beyond solely as subjects of data collection? (evaluation report)						Typically, ‘Yes’ requires more information than merely indicating the commissioners reviewed the draft or final reports, such as the involvement of an evaluation reference group, a stakeholder review of the ToRs or validation workshop.
Do findings appropriately reflect the various perspectives and voices of the multiple stakeholders involved? (evaluation report)						‘Yes’ requires multiple instances of evidence attributed to different groups. ‘No’ if the source of qualitative evidence is insufficiently specific e.g. "stakeholders reported that . . ".
Is it evident that power imbalances were recognized and addressed, and that participatory and empowerment approaches were favoured? (evaluation report)						‘Yes’ requires reference to use of a participatory approach, and preferably an explanation of how this was done. The first part of the question is context dependent. If community-level data is collected, then ‘yes’ requires a description of how evaluators ensured all voices were heard.
5. Credibility and Rigour	CR
Did evaluators use credible and independent data and methodologies that measure and assess whether, what, how and how much the GCF contributes towards mitigation and adaptation to climate change? (evaluation report)						‘Yes’ requires the data to be credible and clear about the project's contribution to mitigation or adaptation. This is particularly important for final evaluations and all medium and large projects. For midterm reviews of micro and small projects, this information can be implicit.
Did the evaluation use mixed methods and draw on multiple sources of evidence, including quantitative and qualitative evidence derived from both primary and secondary data sources? (evaluation report)						‘Yes’ requires the methodology to show the use of both qualitative and quantitative data and primary and secondary data.
Did the approach enable for testing of development hypotheses or assumptions and ensure that causal pathways are well defined? (evaluation report)						A ‘yes’ rating does not necessarily require the words 'hypothesis' or 'assumptions' to be included, provided it is clear the evaluators considered the underlying logic of the project and the causal connections.
Are the questions for surveys, focus groups or interviews value neutral, culturally and age appropriate, and not likely to cause stress to participants? (evaluation report)						This depends on the context. If vulnerable groups are consulted, the appropriateness of questions and methods is more critical. In all cases, rate as ‘no’ if protocols were not attached.
6. Transparency	CR
Are evaluators informed of the obligation to provide a clear and transparent accounting of the findings? (ToR)						‘Yes’ requires the ToR to explicitly or implicitly reference these elements.
Were quality assurance processes required and established? (ToR and evaluation report)						‘Yes’ requires this to be evident in both the ToR and report. There should be specific mention that data or report quality were assured or findings validated. Expectations are higher for large-scale data collection. Rate as 'partial’ if the description is limited to deliverables being reviewed by evaluation managers or other stakeholders.
Are findings coherently anchored in the evidence base with sources on which they are based clearly stated? (evaluation report)						‘Yes’ requires sources of evidence for findings to be frequently cited. ‘Partial’ if there is only occasional mention of sources.
Are conclusions coherently anchored in the analysis and do recommendations have their genesis in the conclusions? (evaluation report)						‘Yes’ requires the conclusions to be based on the findings and the recommendations to link to the conclusions. It is not necessary for this to be explicitly organized by criteria or number, although this is preferable.
Is the evaluation easily readable? (evaluation report)						‘Yes’ requires the report to be reasonably well written and well formatted with minimal errors.
7. Learning	CR
Does the evaluation contribute to organizational learning about the effectiveness of GCF’s efforts to address the climate change crisis—specifically by increasing understanding of the causal relationships and impacts of its interventions?						This requires a judgement about whether the evaluation's content and presentation can serve GCF's learning needs.
Does the evaluation include a learning plan that identifies the mechanisms to share findings widely? (evaluation report)						‘Yes’ requires the evaluation report to include a strategy or suggestions for sharing the evaluation results.
8. Human Rights, Gender Equality and Environmental Considerations	CR
Is it evident that data-collection methods were sensitive to the intersecting factors among stakeholders, such as ethnicity, age or socioeconomic class? (evaluation report)						‘Yes’ requires some indication that methods were tailored to different types of stakeholders, demonstrating that they were not treated as a single, uniform group. Expectations are higher if data is collected from vulnerable populations.
Does the analysis consider how vulnerable groups and other stakeholders may have been impacted in different ways by the intervention, i.e. present disaggregated results? (evaluation report)						‘Yes’ requires findings to show differentiated results multiple times. Rate as 'partial’ if there are only a few instances. This rating is context dependent; for example, if household-level data is collected then expectations for the amount of disaggregated data is higher.
Is it clear how the evaluation minimized its carbon footprint, e.g. in travel arrangements and carbon offsetting of emissions? (evaluation report)						‘Yes’ requires an explicit description of the measures taken to ensure the evaluation process had minimal environmental impact. For example, rate as 'partial' if national evaluators or all remote data collection were used.
9. Confidentiality	CR
Were the identity and confidentiality of evaluation participants protected throughout the evaluation process, and is it evident participants were informed about how the evaluation would use their data? (evaluation report)						Yes' requires that confidentiality, anonymity and the purpose of data collection are clearly stated, either in methodology section or introduction to the data collection tools. Sources must not be named in the evaluation report or listed in an annex of stakeholders. ‘Partial’ requires at least confidentiality to be addressed. ‘No’ if findings include the names of any sources.
Does the evaluation plan have clear protocols for the storage and destruction of data after the evaluation? (evaluation report)						For a 'yes’ rating, both storage and data destruction must be addressed ‘Partial’ if only one of these is mentioned.
Is it evident that data collection teams (where used) were trained on the importance of confidentiality and their responsibility for protecting participants’ privacy? (evaluation report)						Use N/A if the evaluation DID NOT involve the use of personnel beyond the core evaluation team.
10. Cost Effectiveness	CR
Is it apparent that the proposed approach to gathering evidence is the most cost-effective? (ToR)						This would typically be rated ‘Yes’. Rate as 'partial’ or ‘no’ if, for example, multiple international team members are travelling to the same sites, depending on the context.
Are the time frame and resources (i.e., # of days) realistic for achieving the intended purpose and outcomes, including for engaging local stakeholders and communicating findings to different stakeholder groups? (ToR or evaluation report)						The response is typically 'Cannot Rate', except when the ToR details the number of days and timeframe for the evaluation, or the evaluators discuss this under limitations. One benchmark is provided by the GCF guidelines. These suggest evaluation budgets, excluding monitoring, should comprise approximately 2% of the project budget.
11. Ethics	CR
Is it clear that evaluators need to adhere to ethical requirements? (ToR)						For a 'yes’ rating, the ToR must explicitly address ethical conduct. Rate 'partial’ if implicit.
Is there an explanation for how evaluators adhered to high standards of ethics and professional conduct? (evaluation report)						‘Yes’ requires an explanation of ethical practices followed or a reference to adhering to UNEG or other ethical codes of conduct for evaluations. ‘Partial’ if they are only briefly mentioned.
Is it evident that evaluators received free, prior and informed consent and permission from participants in advance of data collection? (evaluation report)						‘Yes’ requires informed consent to be evident. This is typically found in the introduction to the annexed data collection protocols.
Were formal or informal ethical review processes applied before conducting the evaluation in cases where primary data was collected from potentially vulnerable people or in sensitive contexts? (evaluation report)						Use N/A if the evaluation DID NOT involve collecting household data or similar circumstances. A rating of ‘yes’ requires explicit mention of IRB or other ethical review process.
12. Integrity	CR
Is it apparent that evaluators and those being evaluated were guided by a professional sense of integrity and conduct? (evaluation report)						‘Yes’ requires explicit mention of adhering to ethical practices. ‘Partial’ if this is implicit. ‘No’ if there is a red flag.
13. Accountability	CR
Is there transparency regarding the evaluation’s purpose? (ToR and report)						‘Yes’ requires evaluation purpose to be explicit in both the ToR and evaluation report.
It is apparent that the evaluation was conducted in a rigorous, fair and balanced manner with judgments based on sound and complete evidence? (evaluation report)						This requires an overall judgement on how the evaluation was conducted.
14. Competence	CR
Is there a requirement for the evaluation team to have a combination of expertise in leading evaluations, adaptation, sector (i.e., forestry/ecosystems/agriculture /infrastructure etc.), gender and social inclusion, and qualitative and quantitative approaches depending on the evaluation design? GHG accounting is expected for cross-cutting and mitigation interventions. (ToR)						‘Yes’ requires that ToR includes all elements relevant to the context. The GHG requirement for accounting expertise primarily refers to medium and large projects.
Is it evident that the evaluators, collectively, had the required qualifications, expertise and experience to conduct the evaluation competently? (evaluation report)						‘Yes’ requires a description of the evaluators' suitability for the task and, ideally, includes brief biodata. ‘Partial’ if there is only a general statement about the evaluators. ‘No’ if there is no information about the evaluators.
15. Respect and Beneficence	CR
Is it evident that the evaluators were sensitive to the beliefs, manners and customs of the social and cultural environments in which they worked? (evaluation report)						‘Yes’ requires some indication of the evaluation's sensitivity. Typically this appears in the sections on methodology or data collection tools. It can include the use of national or local evaluators, translators or evaluators with prior country experience or relevant expertise, or the level of adherence to UNEG ethical guidelines. This rating is context dependent, as expectations are higher if data was collected from vulnerable groups. Rate 'partial' if it was a standard evaluation that does not have relevant information and there are no red flags.
Is it evident that the evaluation team was comprised of members with appropriate representation regarding sex and a broad mix of backgrounds, skills and perspectives, including national and international expertise? (evaluation report)						‘Yes’ requires most of these issues to be evident. Use 'Cannot Rate' if there is no information about the evaluators.
# Yes		0	score of 1
# Partial		0	score of .5
# No		0	score of 0
# Cannot Rate		0
# N/A		0

Criteria coverage

Criteria	Coverage	Notes
Relevance of projects and programmes
Efficiency of projects and programmes
Effectiveness of projects and programmes
Sustainability of projects and programmes
Impact of projects and programmes
Coherence in Climate Finance Delivery with other multilateral entities
Gender Equity
Country Ownership of projects and programmes
Unexpected Results, both positive and negative
Innovativeness in results areas, regarding the extent to which interventions may lead to paradigm shift towards low-emission and climate-resilient development pathways		Not required for midterm reviews
Replicability and Scalability regarding the extent to which the activities can be scaled up in other locations within the country or replicated in other countries		Not required for midterm reviews


Reviewer instructions
Use the drop-down function to select 'Yes', 'Partial', 'No' or 'N/A' for each criteria.
The main purpose is to show what criteria were covered and not depth of analysis.
Partial to be used when there is only very brief coverage; where it is clearly insufficient.